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

Abstract

The aim of peer review is to separate the wheat from the chaff for publication and research funding. In the excessive competition, this mechanism would only select the wheat of mainstream. Up to now, almost all discussions on the consequence of the shortcomings of peer review are limited to qualitatively description. I propose a model of ''peergroup-assessed-grant-based-funding-system'' combined with tenure system and overcompetitive research funding review process. It is the first on the quantitatively investigation which dramatizes the current short-comings of the process. My simulation shows that it takes about two or three generations of researchers for the mainstream of a complicated research topic obtaining monopoly supremacy, with only the aid of the mechanism the model described. Based on the computation results, suggestions are proposed to avoid loss of self-correction capability on popularity determined single research direction which could be wrong on very complicated research topics.

Over-Competitiveness in Academia: A Literature Review

“…8 An over-competitive environment favors mainstream ideas, and suppresses novel and opposing views. 30 It is not just publishing that is vital for survival, but publishing in peer-reviewed journals is more highly recognized and increasingly, publishing in those journals is considered a top tier in their field. 24 Some departments only value publishing in a small number of journals without considering others, making it very stressful for academics, as top-tier journals have very low acceptance rates.…”

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

“…2, the ratio of Steady State theory to the Big Bang theory is the highest in the 1950s when it was welcome in the scientific community. It is the objectivity feature of science (Fang 2011) that has ruled out the Steady State theory with the observation of radio waves from space (Ryle and Clark 1961) and CMBR (Penzias and Wilson 1965).…”

“…Figure 3 shows the ratios of papers on Big Bang theory after 1978 to those on Cosmology. Its simulated curve according to our paper (Fang 2011) is calculated with the juxtaposition between the standard theory Big Bang and Plasma Universe. The initial ratio in simulation is from the data of Fig.…”

“…Our previous work (Fang 2011) established a numerical model of ''peer-group-assessedgrant-based-funding-system'' (Spier and Bird 2003) combined with tenure system and overcompetitive research funding review process. The model divides the researchers into two kinds, with permanent position (such as tenure) or without permanent position (such as newcomers).…”

“…This is possible because the nonmainstream camp have been driven out. To avoid the loss of self-correction capability on popularity determined single research direction which could be wrong on very complicated research topics, we (Fang 2011), based on simulations, suggested that the grant funding system should retain a certain proportion (such as 10-20%) of grant funding for the nonmainstream camp of special topics as described above. Similarly Spier (2002a, b) suggested the same proportion of research funding to be devoted to innovative ends.…”