IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v90y2012i2d10.1007_s11192-011-0526-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly. Part II

Author

Listed:
  • Xuan Zhen Liu

    (Library of Nanjing Medical University)

  • Hui Fang

    (Nanjing University)

Abstract

In our previous work (Scientometrics 87:293–301, 2011), a numerical model of over-competitive research funding in “peer-group-assessed-grant-based-funding-system” was proposed and the process was firstly investigated quantitatively. The simulation results show that the mainstream of a very complicated research topic could obtain monopoly supremacy with only the aid of the mechanism the model described. Here, the numbers of publications of cosmology back to 1950 are utilized to empirically test this positive feedback mechanism. The development of three main theories of cosmology, Big Bang, Steady State and Plasma Universe, are revisited. The later two, which are non-mainstream opinions, both state in their peer reviewed papers, that their theories fit the phenomena that support the standard theory. The ratios of publications of the orthodox theory, Big Bang, approximately satisfy the numeric calculating results of our model. The reason for the discrepancy between the model and actual situation is discussed. A further question about the controversy is presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2012. "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly. Part II," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 607-616, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:90:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0526-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0526-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0526-3
    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/s11192-011-0526-3?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. Werner Marx & Lutz Bornmann, 2010. "How accurately does Thomas Kuhn’s model of paradigm change describe the transition from the static view of the universe to the big bang theory in cosmology?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 441-464, August.
    2. Hui Fang, 2011. "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 293-301, May.
    3. Trisha Gura, 2002. "Peer review, unmasked," Nature, Nature, vol. 416(6878), pages 258-260, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.

    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. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.
    2. Matthieu Ballandonne & Igor Cersosimo, 2021. "A note on reference publication year spectroscopy with incomplete information," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4927-4939, June.
    3. Pandelis Perakakis & Michael Taylor & Marco G. Mazza & Varvara Trachana, 2011. "Understanding the role of open peer review and dynamic academic articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 669-673, August.
    4. Katarína Cechlárová & Tamás Fleiner & Eva Potpinková, 2014. "Assigning evaluators to research grant applications: the case of Slovak Research and Development Agency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 495-506, May.
    5. Michail Kovanis & Ludovic Trinquart & Philippe Ravaud & Raphaël Porcher, 2017. "Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 651-671, October.
    6. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    7. Pablo Contreras Kallens & Rick Dale, 2018. "Exploratory mapping of theoretical landscapes through word use in abstracts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1641-1674, September.
    8. Spiro Stefanou & Kristiaan Kerstens, 2008. "Applied production analysis unveiled in open peer review: introductory remarks," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 1-6, August.
    9. Johan Bollen & David Crandall & Damion Junk & Ying Ding & Katy Börner, 2017. "An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 521-528, January.
    10. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 695-715, February.
    11. Hui Fang, 2011. "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 293-301, 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:90:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0526-3. 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.