In the USA, publishing a large number of low-quality papers is at best unhelpful for getting grants. It's probably (very!) harmful.
> funding commitees will want some kind of metric for "non-technical" people.
The stakeholders within funding agencies are always technical. The external stakeholders -- congressional staff and corporate executives -- could not care less about citations/paper counts.
Based on your view of how these things work, I'm a bit curious about your background here. Have you sat on a funding committee for a public funding agency? Do you know the names of any program directors? Have you served on an academic grant review committee for your employer? If so, I'm really curious to know what field you're in, since things appear to work quite differently there.
In the USA, publishing a large number of low-quality papers is at best unhelpful for getting grants. It's probably (very!) harmful.
> funding commitees will want some kind of metric for "non-technical" people.
The stakeholders within funding agencies are always technical. The external stakeholders -- congressional staff and corporate executives -- could not care less about citations/paper counts.
Based on your view of how these things work, I'm a bit curious about your background here. Have you sat on a funding committee for a public funding agency? Do you know the names of any program directors? Have you served on an academic grant review committee for your employer? If so, I'm really curious to know what field you're in, since things appear to work quite differently there.