A study from Northwestern University indicates that fraudulent academic publications are rising more quickly than legitimate ones. The established model where scientists trade knowledge for government support is showing signs of failure. Current evaluations rely on quantitative metrics over intrinsic merit, fostering unhealthy competition and resource inequality. This trend has led to a proliferation of scientific fraud as researchers pursue quick gains in metrics. The pressure of numerical evaluations encourages shortcuts in research integrity.
Over the last four centuries, an implicit contract has been established between scientists and states: in exchange for producing knowledge useful for economic and social development, governments and other benefactors offer researchers stable careers, good salaries, and public recognition.
The authors argue that due to the large scale and specialization of contemporary science, the contribution of each actor is no longer evaluated by the intrinsic merit of their work, but by quantitative indicators.
Collection
[
|
...
]