Methodology and Scientific Competition
Episteme 8 (2):165-183 (2011)
Abstract
Why is the average quality of research in open science so high? The answer seems obvious. Science is highly competitive, and publishing high quality research is the way to rise to the top. Thus, researchers face strong incentives to produce high quality work. However, this is only part of the answer. High quality in science, after all, is what researchers in the relevant field consider to be high quality. Why and how do competing researchers coordinate on common quality standards? I argue that, on the methodological level, science is a dynamic beauty contest.DOI
10.3366/epi.2011.0014
My notes
Similar books and articles
The LL game: The curious preference for low quality and its norms.Diego Gambetta & Gloria Origgi - 2013 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (1):3-23.
Can designing and selling low-quality products be ethical?Willem Bakker & Michael C. Loui - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (2):153-170.
The market for lawyers: The value of information on the quality of legal services.Elisabetta Iossa & Bruno Jullien - unknown
The status of business ethics: Past and future. [REVIEW]Richard T. George - 1987 - Journal of Business Ethics 6 (3):201 - 211.
Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency.Martin L. Lalumière & Vernon L. Quinsey - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):608-609.
The concept of quality in clinical research.Dorota Śwituła - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):147-156.
Quality control in academic publishing: challenges in the age of cyberscience.Michael Nentwich - 2004 - Poiesis and Praxis 3 (3):181-198.
Where should we draw the line between quality of care and other ethical concerns related to medical registries and biobanks?Mats Hansson - 2012 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (4):313-323.
Providing or hiding information: On the evolution of amplifiers and attenuators of perceived quality differences.Oren Hasson, Dan Cohen & Avi Shmida - 1992 - Acta Biotheoretica 40 (4):269-283.
A review of the types of scientific misconduct in biomedical research. [REVIEW]Malhar N. Kumar - 2008 - Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (3):211-228.
A critique of Kitcher on eugenic reasoning.Gregory Radick - 2001 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 32 (4):741-751.
Prediction as an Impediment to Preparedness: Lessons from the US Hurricane and Earthquake Research Enterprises.Genevieve E. Maricle - 2011 - Minerva 49 (1):87-111.
Consumer Sovereignty in Healthcare: Fact or Fiction? [REVIEW]M. Joseph Sirgy, Dong-Jin Lee & Grace B. Yu - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 101 (3):459-474.
Analytics
Added to PP
2011-06-23
Downloads
80 (#153,785)
6 months
1 (#449,844)
2011-06-23
Downloads
80 (#153,785)
6 months
1 (#449,844)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Economic Approaches to Understanding Scientific Norms.Michael Strevens - 2011 - Episteme 8 (2):184-200.
Science, institutions, and values.C. Mantzavinos - 2021 - European Journal of Philosophy 29 (2):379-392.
References found in this work
The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.Robert King Merton - 1973 - University of Chicago Press.
Behavioral game theory: Plausible formal models that predict accurately.Colin F. Camerer - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):157-158.
The Strategy of Conflict: With a New Preface by the Author.Thomas C. Schelling - 1960 - Harvard University Press.