IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v46y2019i1p154-158..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Williams and Morrone misunderstand and inadvertently support my argument: Mexico’s SNI systematically steers ecological research

Author

Listed:
  • Mark W Neff

Abstract

My recent publication highlighting the unintended steering influences of publication incentives on the research agenda of Mexican ecological scientists elicited a vehement critique from two renowned Mexican ecologists, Williams and Morrone. The argument I advance is that Mexico’s National System of Researchers (SNI) unintentionally steers ecological researchers away from the knowledge needs of local, national, and regional users of scientific knowledge and relinquishes research priority-setting to individuals and institutions disconnected from Mexico’s knowledge needs. Rather than engaging with the substance of argument, these critics focus on what they believe to be factual errors. In their response, Williams and Morrone effectively but unintentionally confirm the premise, mechanism, and indeed the key factual claims in my article. I stand behind my analysis as published.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark W Neff, 2019. "Williams and Morrone misunderstand and inadvertently support my argument: Mexico’s SNI systematically steers ecological research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 154-158.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:1:p:154-158.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scy031
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:1:p:154-158.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.