Is This Obvious? Screening for Important Contributions in Science

This paper studies how to reward obvious and non-obvious ideas differently when researchers have private information about obviousness, and non-obvious ideas are important but particularly costly to develop. Because obvious ideas might still value rewards like publications or patents, screening with fees or delay is not possible. Instead the planner must use costly scrutiny. We show that when scrutiny is imperfect, there is a tension between screening for obviousness and the efficient development of ideas: non-obvious ideas are less developed, and obvious ideas sometimes more developed, than they would be in the full-information optimal allocation. The constrained efficient allocation has features that look like the publication process, including tiers of journals and a top tier that is very exclusive. Changes in scrutiny costs predict changes to journal articles that are in line with empirical evidence on top journals.