David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
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)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Colin F. Camerer (2003). Behavioral Game Theory: Plausible Formal Models That Predict Accurately. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):157-158.
Robert King Merton (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press.
Thomas Schelling (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Michael Strevens (2011). Economic Approaches to Understanding Scientific Norms. Episteme 8 (2):184-200.
Similar books and articles
D. Gambetta & G. Origgi (2013). The LL Game: The Curious Preference for Low Quality and its Norms. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (1):3-23.
Willem Bakker & Michael C. Loui (1997). Can Designing and Selling Low-Quality Products Be Ethical? Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (2):153-170.
Elisabetta Iossa & Bruno Jullien, The Market for Lawyers: The Value of Information on the Quality of Legal Services.
Richard T. George (1987). The Status of Business Ethics: Past and Future. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 6 (3):201 - 211.
Martin L. Lalumière & Vernon L. Quinsey (2000). Good Genes, Mating Effort, and Delinquency. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):608-609.
T. L. P. Tang (2007). Income and Quality of Life: Does the Love of Money Make a Difference? [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 72 (4):375 - 393.
Dorota Śwituła (2006). The Concept of Quality in Clinical Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):147-156.
Michael Nentwich (2004). Quality Control in Academic Publishing: Challenges in the Age of Cyberscience. Poiesis and Praxis 3 (3):181-198.
Mats Hansson (2012). Where Should We Draw the Line Between Quality of Care and Other Ethical Concerns Related to Medical Registries and Biobanks? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (4):313-323.
Oren Hasson, Dan Cohen & Avi Shmida (1992). Providing or Hiding Information: On the Evolution of Amplifiers and Attenuators of Perceived Quality Differences. Acta Biotheoretica 40 (4).
Malhar N. Kumar (2008). A Review of the Types of Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical Research. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (3):211-228.
G. Radick (2001). A Critique of Kitcher on Eugenic Reasoning. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 32 (4):741-751.
Genevieve Maricle (2011). Prediction as an Impediment to Preparedness: Lessons From the US Hurricane and Earthquake Research Enterprises. Minerva 49 (1):87-111.
M. Joseph Sirgy, Dong-Jin Lee & Grace B. Yu (2011). Consumer Sovereignty in Healthcare: Fact or Fiction? [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 101 (3):459-474.
Added to index2011-06-23
Total downloads47 ( #39,426 of 1,140,063 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #92,708 of 1,140,063 )
How can I increase my downloads?
|Start a new thread||There is 1 thread in this forum|
David J. Saab
Pennsylvania State University
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...