IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nas/journl/v118y2021pe2111615118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why ex post peer review encourages high-risk research while ex ante review discourages it

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Gross

    (a Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695;)

  • Carl T. Bergstrom

    (b Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195)

Abstract

Science operates within social structures that govern and shape scientific activity. One such institution is peer review, which focuses attention on promising and interesting science while encouraging scientists to pursue some questions instead of others. Here, we show that ex ante review of proposals for future work and ex post review of completed science create different incentives for researchers. This tension creates a dilemma, because most researchers need to find projects that will survive both ex ante and ex post peer review. By unpacking this dynamic, we can understand how peer review shapes scientific activity and how changes to peer review might take science in unforeseen directions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Gross & Carl T. Bergstrom, 2021. "Why ex post peer review encourages high-risk research while ex ante review discourages it," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(51), pages 2111615118-, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:118:y:2021:p:e2111615118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/118/51/e2111615118.full
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:118:y:2021:p:e2111615118. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Eric Cain (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.pnas.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.