IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/1002460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientists’ Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right

Author

Listed:
  • Charles R Ebersole
  • Jordan R Axt
  • Brian A Nosek

Abstract

Replication is vital for increasing precision and accuracy of scientific claims. However, when replications “succeed” or “fail,” they could have reputational consequences for the claim’s originators. Surveys of United States adults (N = 4,786), undergraduates (N = 428), and researchers (N = 313) showed that reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true. When comparing one scientist that produced boring but certain results with another that produced exciting but uncertain results, opinion favored the former despite researchers’ belief in more rewards for the latter. Considering idealized views of scientific practices offers an opportunity to address incentives to reward both innovation and verification.How are scientists evaluated? Members of the general public, undergraduate students, and active researchers all agree that the research process, not the results, determines a scientist’s reputation.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles R Ebersole & Jordan R Axt & Brian A Nosek, 2016. "Scientists’ Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-7, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1002460
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1002460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.