IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp9895.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Research Parasites Are Beneficial for the Organism as a Whole: Competition between Researchers Creates a Symbiotic Relationship

Author

Listed:
  • Fecher, Benedikt

    (DIW Berlin)

  • Wagner, Gert G.

    (Max Planck Institute for Human Development)

Abstract

In the New England Journal of Medicine, Longo and Drazen critically assessed the concept of data sharing. Their main concern is that a "new class of research person will emerge" that uses data, which were gathered by other researchers, for their own original research questions. The authors referred to this class of researcher as "research parasites". Longo and Drazen are right when they note that scientific data sharing deserves more recognition. However, they indicate that the most adequate form of recognition for data sharing is coauthorship. They suggest to work "symbiotically, rather than parasitically, with the investigators holding the data, moving the field forward in a way that neither group could have done on its own." Although this is true in particular cases, co-authorship as the sole instrument of credit will unnecessarily restrict the potential of data sharing. More suitable instruments for giving credit where credit is due would be a much greater appreciation of data sharing by research communities by introducing citations of data sets, bestowing awards for good datasets, and considering data "production" when assessing scientists' career prospects, funding applications, and research outputs.

Suggested Citation

  • Fecher, Benedikt & Wagner, Gert G., 2016. "Research Parasites Are Beneficial for the Organism as a Whole: Competition between Researchers Creates a Symbiotic Relationship," IZA Discussion Papers 9895, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp9895
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp9895.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jesse Chandler & et. al, 2016. "Response to Comment on "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science"," Mathematica Policy Research Reports cff9c2f16bb544c4bcca530c0, Mathematica Policy Research.
    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. Allan Drazen & Anna Dreber & Erkut Y. Ozbay & Erik Snowberg, 2019. "A Journal-Based Replication of "Being Chosen to Lead"," CESifo Working Paper Series 7942, CESifo.
    3. Garret Christensen & Edward Miguel, 2018. "Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 920-980, September.
    4. Leonhard Held, 2020. "A new standard for the analysis and design of replication studies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(2), pages 431-448, February.
    5. Denes Szucs & John P A Ioannidis, 2017. "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Xiaofang Shen & Fei Yin & Can Jiao, 2023. "Predictive Models of Life Satisfaction in Older People: A Machine Learning Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Fecher, Benedikt & Wagner, Gert G., 2016. "A Research Symbiont," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 351(6280), pages 1405-1406.
    8. Franziska Emmerling & Carolien Martijn & Hugo J E M Alberts & Alix C Thomson & Bastian David & Daniel Kessler & Teresa Schuhmann & Alexander T Sack, 2017. "The (non-)replicability of regulatory resource depletion: A field report employing non-invasive brain stimulation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Maren Duvendack & Richard Palmer-Jones & W. Robert Reed, 2017. "What Is Meant by "Replication" and Why Does It Encounter Resistance in Economics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 46-51, May.
    10. Freese, Jeremy & Peterson, David, 2017. "Replication in Social Science," SocArXiv 5bck9, Center for Open Science.
    11. Robert A. Peterson & U. N. Umesh, 2018. "On the significance of statistically insignificant results in consumer behavior experiments," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 81-91, January.
    12. Samuel Pawel & Leonhard Held, 2020. "Probabilistic forecasting of replication studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, April.
    13. Opoku-Agyemang, Kweku A., 2017. "A Human-Computer Interaction Approach for Integrity in Economics," SocArXiv ra3cs, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    data sharing; incentives; rewards; organism; culture;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General
    • C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General
    • Z11 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economics of the Arts and Literature

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:iza:izadps:dp9895. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    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.