Conform and be funded

Nicholson, Joshua M.; Ioannidis, John P. A.

doi:10.1038/492034a

Cited by 139 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When it comes to funding, a similar pattern of false positives may pertain: a study by Nicholson and Ioannidis (2012) suggests that highly cited authors are less likely to head major biomedical research grants than less-frequently-cited but socially betterconnected authors who are associated with granting agency study groups and review panels. Fang, Bowen and Casadevall have discovered that "the percentile scores awarded by peer review panels" at the NIH correlated "poorly" with "productivity as measured by citations of grant-supported publications" (Fang et al, 2016).…”

Section: What Is "Excellence"?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Campanario, Gans and Shepherd, and others, for example, have traced the rejection histories of Nobel and other prize winners, including for papers reporting on results for which they later won their recognition (Gans and Shepherd, 1994;Campanario, 2009;Azoulay et al, 2011: 527-528). Campanario and others have also reported on the initial rejection of papers that later went on to become among the more highly cited in their fields or in the journals that ultimately accepted them (Campanario, 1993(Campanario, , 1996Campanario, 1995;Campanario and Acedo, 2007;Calcagno et al, 2012;Nicholson and Ioannidis, 2012;Siler et al, 2015). Yet others have found a generally poor relationship between high ratings in grant competitions and subsequent "productivity" as measured by publication or citation counts (Pagano, 2006;Costello, 2010;Lindner and Nakamura, 2015;Fang et al, 2016;Meng, 2016).…”

Section: What Is "Excellence"?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rhetoric of "excellence" is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organizations, from art history to zoology. But does "excellence" actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of "excellence" do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate "excellence" as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hyper-competition that arises from the performance of "excellence" is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that "excellence" is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

show abstract

Section: What Is "Excellence"?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Is "Excellence"?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This means that genuinely innovative and excellent proposals are sometimes given too few opportunities (Nicholson and Ioannidis, 2012). Diversity is an important factor, and not only for peer review.…”

Section: Downloaded By [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam] At 23:07 31 Janmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentary: Perverse Incentives or Rotten Apples?

Bouter

2015

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Around 2% of the investigators admit to have falsified or fabricated data at least once. Also, 34% report to have been guilty to one or more questionable research practices, such as doing many statistical analyses and to publish only what fits their theoretical framework. Prevention of questionable research practices is very important. Universities should ensure that the training is in order and the research culture is adequate, and they should critically look at perverse incentives, such as a too high publication pressure, but also by ensuring proper guidelines, and by having a fair and transparent procedure for suspected violations of scientific integrity.

show abstract

“…Also, certain scientific practices, such as the peer-review mechanism, contribute to global 'scientific production' converging to the dominant opinion. Scholars are directed to work in trending scientific areas and where available funding is provided (Nicholson and Ioannidis, 2012). However, OA is providing scholars from the periphery with alternative strategies to enter the science market unimpeded.…”

Section: Oa Is Aiding Wider Circulation Of Grey Literature Every New mentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterpoints about predatory open access and knowledge publishing in Africa

Nwagwu

2015

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conform and be funded

Cited by 139 publications

References 7 publications

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

Commentary: Perverse Incentives or Rotten Apples?

Counterpoints about predatory open access and knowledge publishing in Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About