Competitive Science: Is Competition Ruining Science?

Fang, Ferric C.; Casadevall, Arturo

doi:10.1128/iai.02939-14

Cited by 99 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moving from a descriptive to prescriptive approach, we close with a discussion of recommendations meant to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility. These recommendations are focused not only on discouraging QRPs but also on promoting greater sharing and collaboration within our field (for review papers on these issues, see Fang & Casadevall, 2015;Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012;.…”

Section: Recommendations For Promoting Transparency Openness and Rementioning

confidence: 99%

Questions About Questionable Research Practices in the Field of Management

Banks

O’Boyle

Pollack

et al. 2015

Journal of Management

148

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discussion regarding questionable research practices (QRPs) A recent spate of high profile scandals in the social sciences, some of which occurred within management, has shaken the confidence of those within and outside of the profession, leading to calls for greater transparency and oversight into the research process (Finkel, Eastwick, & Reis, 2015;Matlack, 2013;Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). Adding to concerns about the veracity of management research is evidence that our field and closely related fields may be susceptible to questionable research practices (QRPs; Bosco, Aguinis, Field, Pierce, & Dalton, in press;Francis, Tanzman, & Matthews, 2014;Franco, Malhotra, & Simonovits, 2014; O'Boyle, Banks, & Gonzalez-Mule, in press; Open Science Collaboration, 2015).QRPs operate in the ambiguous space between what one might consider best practices and academic misconduct. Some examples of QRPs can include presenting post hoc findings as a priori, "cherry picking" fit indices, and selectively deleting outliers for the purpose of achieving statistical significance. The occurrence of these practices is not always questionable; in fact, some of these approaches are beneficial to management research under the right circumstances. For instance, exploratory data analysis has led to numerous discoveries in both the physical and social sciences (for a review, see Locke, 2007). Furthermore, certain fit indices are objectively better than others, and outliers should be examined and, at times, dropped from further analysis (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013). However, those who see QRPs as a problem point to when the practices are either misreported or not reported rather than the practices themselves (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011).The purpose of this commentary is to highlight the wide-ranging perspectives about QRPs in terms of their possible causes, their prevalence, and journal policies that may prevent them.Editors' Note: This paper was originally submitted as a regular submission. However, the JOM editorial team thought the overall theme and set of issues were better addressed via an editorial commentary aimed at spurring dialogue concerning ethical research practices in our field. We are pleased that the authors have included the full write-up of the five studies that inform this work (downloadable as Supplemental Material; please have a look). As with all journals' editorial policies, JOM's own editorial policy on data transparency, reporting, and other practices discussed in this piece continues to evolve. We have signed on to the Editor's Code of Ethics (https://editorethics.uncc. edu/), are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org/), have recently made changes to our review policy in ways that increase reviewer accountability to professional standards, and are considering adopting additional practices and/or partnering with other groups that focus on developing high standards for science and ethics. The current commentary is not an official reflection of JOM's officia...

show abstract

Section: Recommendations For Promoting Transparency Openness and Rementioning

confidence: 99%

Questions About Questionable Research Practices in the Field of Management

Banks

O’Boyle

Pollack

et al. 2015

Journal of Management

148

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[7] Fourth, creativity requires a different approach to teaching. We need to foster the autonomy of young trainees to seek their own solutions and place them in environments that foster creativity and networking [5]. We need to realize that technology does not necessarily foster creativity.…”

Section: What Could Be Done?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By the same token, appreciation of the power of epigenetics, such as parent-child attachment on the phenotypic expression of genes, was long considered off limits or, at best, met with frowns and unapologetic questioning. Fang and Casadevall [5] wrote, "Important scientific findings arise from unfettered exploration, the passion of individual scientists to understand a problem, and research environments that foster interaction" (p. 1231). Does the current atmosphere of rules of conversation and limits on exchange do enough to foster this interaction and creativity?…”

Section: Is Creativity In Psychiatry and Medicine Lost?mentioning

confidence: 99%

This Is Water Revisited: Creativity Lost

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Diversity of scales in pace and budget. The increasingly all-consuming competitive nature of academic life often discourages speculation, innovation, and collaboration (Hagstrom 1974;Cabota et al 2013;Fang & Casadevall 2015). Little time and energy is left for the reflection needed to develop original ideas (Alberts et al 2014).…”

Section: Box 3 Shifting the Dominant Narrativementioning

confidence: 99%

A new paradigm for science: nurturing the ecosystem

Lancaster

Thessen

Virapongse

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The institutions of science are in a state of flux. Declining public funding for basic science, the increasingly corporatized administration of universities, increasing “adjunctification” of the professoriate and poor academic career prospects for postdoctoral scientists indicate a significant mismatch between the reality of the market economy and expectations in higher education for science. Solutions to these issues typically revolve around the idea of fixing the career "pipeline", envisioned being a pathway from higher-education training to a coveted permanent position, and then up a career ladder until retirement. In this paper, we propose and describe the term “ecosystem” as an appropriate way to conceptualize today’s scientific training and the professional landscape of the scientific enterprise. First, we highlight the issues around the concept of “fixing the pipeline”. Then, we articulate our ecosystem metaphor by describing a series of concrete design patterns that draw on peer-to-peer, decentralized, co-operative, and commons-based approaches to creating a new dynamic scientific enterprise.

show abstract

Competitive Science: Is Competition Ruining Science?

Cited by 99 publications

References 59 publications

Questions About Questionable Research Practices in the Field of Management

Questions About Questionable Research Practices in the Field of Management

This Is Water Revisited: Creativity Lost

A new paradigm for science: nurturing the ecosystem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About