IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v110y2017i1d10.1007_s11192-016-2109-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What’s wrong with Science?

Author

Listed:
  • David Chavalarias

    (Centre d’Analyse et de Mathématique Sociales (CAMS)
    Institut des Systèmes Complexes de Paris Ile-de-France (ISC-PIF))

Abstract

There is an increasing pressure on scholars to publish to further or sustain a career in academia. Governments and funding agencies are greedy of indicators based on scientific production to measure science output. But what exactly do we know about the relation between publication levels and advances in science? How do social dynamics and norms interfere with the quality of the scientific production? Are there different regimes of scientific dynamics? The present study proposes some concepts to think about scientific dynamics, through the modeling of the relation between science policies and scholars’ exploration–exploitation dilemmas. Passing, we analyze in detail the effects of the “publish or perish” policy, that turns out to have no significant effects in the developments of emerging scientific fields, while having detrimental impacts on the quality of the production of mature fields.

Suggested Citation

  • David Chavalarias, 2017. "What’s wrong with Science?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 481-503, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:110:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2109-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2109-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2109-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-016-2109-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "A perspective on psychology and economics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 657-685, May.
    3. David Chavalarias & Sylvain Charron & Vincent de Gardelle & Paul Bourgine, 2005. "Nobel, Le Jeu De La Decouverte Scientifique," Working Papers halshs-00005009, HAL.
    4. Rosaria Conte & Mario Paolucci, 2001. "Intelligent Social Learning," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 4(1), pages 1-3.
    5. David Chavalarias, 2006. "Metamimetic Games : Modeling Metadynamics in Social Cognition," Post-Print hal-00007743, HAL.
    6. David Chavalarias, 2006. "Metamimetic Games: Modeling Metadynamics in Social Cognition," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(2), pages 1-5.
    7. N. Gilbert, 1997. "A Simulation of the Structure of Academic Science," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(2), pages 91-105, June.
    8. Leonard P Freedman & Iain M Cockburn & Timothy S Simcoe, 2015. "The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-9, June.
    9. Bruce Edmonds & Nigel Gilbert & Petra Ahrweiler & Andrea Scharnhorst, 2011. "Simulating the Social Processes of Science," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 14(4), pages 1-14.
    10. Aumann, Robert J., 1997. "Rationality and Bounded Rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 21(1-2), pages 2-14, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff, 2015. "Can intellectual processes in the sciences also be simulated? The anticipation and visualization of possible future states," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2197-2214, December.
    3. Vivian Leung & Frédérik Rousseau-Blass & Guy Beauchamp & Daniel S J Pang, 2018. "ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    4. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    5. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    6. Muradchanian, Jasmine & Hoekstra, Rink & Kiers, Henk & van Ravenzwaaij, Don, 2020. "How Best to Quantify Replication Success? A Simulation Study on the Comparison of Replication Success Metrics," MetaArXiv wvdjf, Center for Open Science.
    7. Francisco Grimaldo & Mario Paolucci & Jordi Sabater-Mir, 2018. "Reputation or peer review? The role of outliers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1421-1438, September.
    8. Ardalan, Kavous, 2018. "Neurofinance versus the efficient markets hypothesis," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 170-176.
    9. Jeff Miller & Rolf Ulrich, 2019. "The quest for an optimal alpha," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, January.
    10. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Stavroula Kousta & Christine Ferguson & Emma Ganley, 2016. "Meta-Research: Broadening the Scope of PLOS Biology," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-2, January.
    12. Adriano Koshiyama & Nick Firoozye, 2019. "Avoiding Backtesting Overfitting by Covariance-Penalties: an empirical investigation of the ordinary and total least squares cases," Papers 1905.05023, arXiv.org.
    13. Hannah Fraser & Tim Parker & Shinichi Nakagawa & Ashley Barnett & Fiona Fidler, 2018. "Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, July.
    14. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    15. Estelle Dumas-Mallet & Andy Smith & Thomas Boraud & François Gonon, 2017. "Poor replication validity of biomedical association studies reported by newspapers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-15, February.
    16. David Chavalarias, 2007. "Endogenous distributions in multi-agents models: the example of endogenization of ends and time constants," Working Papers hal-00135962, HAL.
    17. Estelle Dumas-Mallet & Katherine Button & Thomas Boraud & Marcus Munafo & François Gonon, 2016. "Replication Validity of Initial Association Studies: A Comparison between Psychiatry, Neurology and Four Somatic Diseases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Kavous Ardalan, 2018. "Behavioral attitudes toward current economic events: a lesson from neuroeconomics," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 53(4), pages 202-208, October.
    19. Alexander Frankel & Maximilian Kasy, 2022. "Which Findings Should Be Published?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, February.
    20. Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Carly C Barron & Mathew Bocock & Kristen E Biefer & Sylvain Boet & Stephane L Bourque & Isidora Conic & Kai Chen & Yuan Yi Dong & Grace M Fox & Ronald B George & Neil , 2019. "Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.

    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:spr:scient:v:110:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2109-9. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.