20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Science as collaborative knowledge generation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The COVID‐19 pandemic points to the need for scientists to pool their efforts in order to understand this disease and respond to the ensuing crisis. Other global challenges also require such scientific cooperation. Yet in academic institutions, reward structures and incentives are based on systems that primarily fuel the competition between (groups of) scientific researchers. Competition between individual researchers, research groups, research approaches, and scientific disciplines is seen as an important selection mechanism and driver of academic excellence. These expected benefits of competition have come to define the organizational culture in academia. There are clear indications that the overreliance on competitive models undermines cooperative exchanges that might lead to higher quality insights. This damages the well‐being and productivity of individual researchers and impedes efforts towards collaborative knowledge generation. Insights from social and organizational psychology on the side effects of relying on performance targets, prioritizing the achievement of success over the avoidance of failure, and emphasizing self‐interest and efficiency, clarify implicit mechanisms that may spoil valid attempts at transformation. The analysis presented here elucidates that a broader change in the academic culture is needed to truly benefit from current attempts to create more open and collaborative practices for cumulative knowledge generation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references171

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship

          There is an urgent need to improve the infrastructure supporting the reuse of scholarly data. A diverse set of stakeholders—representing academia, industry, funding agencies, and scholarly publishers—have come together to design and jointly endorse a concise and measureable set of principles that we refer to as the FAIR Data Principles. The intent is that these may act as a guideline for those wishing to enhance the reusability of their data holdings. Distinct from peer initiatives that focus on the human scholar, the FAIR Principles put specific emphasis on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals. This Comment is the first formal publication of the FAIR Principles, and includes the rationale behind them, and some exemplar implementations in the community.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The weirdest people in the world?

            Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.

              Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                N.Ellemers@uu.nl
                Journal
                Br J Soc Psychol
                Br J Soc Psychol
                10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8309
                BJSO
                The British Journal of Social Psychology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0144-6665
                2044-8309
                07 December 2020
                January 2021
                : 60
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1111/bjso.v60.1 )
                : 1-28
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Utrecht University The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence should be addressed to Naomi Ellemers, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 1, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands (email: N.Ellemers@ 123456uu.nl ).

                Article
                BJSO12430
                10.1111/bjso.12430
                7839471
                33616965
                86666042-ce39-4397-ab63-59862c67554a
                © 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 28, Words: 15188
                Funding
                Funded by: Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)
                Funded by: Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science (OCW)
                Categories
                Landmark Article
                Landmark Article
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                January 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.6 mode:remove_FC converted:27.01.2021

                competition in science,covid‐19,academic incentives,crisis in psychology,open science framework,dora,replicability,perverse incentives,research excellence,instrumental climate

                Comments

                Comment on this article