Methodology and Scientific Competition

Episteme 8 (2):165-183 (2011)
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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,360
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA
    Citations of this work BETA
    Similar books and articles
    Dorota Śwituła (2006). The Concept of Quality in Clinical Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):147-156.
    G. Radick (2001). A Critique of Kitcher on Eugenic Reasoning. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 32 (4):741-751.

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index


    Total downloads

    42 ( #33,914 of 1,089,155 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,735 of 1,089,155 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature

    Start a new thread
    There  is 1 thread in this forum
    Just wondering if the irony of an article about the high quality of open science research being situated behind a pay wall was lost on anybody...