IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/3000117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliable novelty: New should not trump true

Author

Listed:
  • Björn Brembs

Abstract

Although a case can be made for rewarding scientists for risky, novel science rather than for incremental, reliable science, novelty without reliability ceases to be science. The currently available evidence suggests that the most prestigious journals are no better at detecting unreliable science than other journals. In fact, some of the most convincing studies show a negative correlation, with the most prestigious journals publishing the least reliable science. With the credibility of science increasingly under siege, how much longer can we afford to reward novelty at the expense of reliability? Here, I argue for replacing the legacy journals with a modern information infrastructure that is governed by scholars. This infrastructure would allow renewed focus on scientific reliability, with improved sort, filter, and discovery functionalities, at massive cost savings. If these savings were invested in additional infrastructure for research data and scientific code and/or software, scientific reliability would receive additional support, and funding woes—for, e.g., biological databases—would be a concern of the past.This Perspective article asserts that the most prestigious journals publish the least reliable science, and asks how long we can afford to reward scientists for publishing there.

Suggested Citation

  • Björn Brembs, 2019. "Reliable novelty: New should not trump true," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-10, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000117
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael D. Gordon, 1982. "Citation ranking versus subjective evaluation in the determination of journal hierachies in the social sciences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 33(1), pages 55-57, January.
    2. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2017. "Post retraction citations in context: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 547-565, October.
    3. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    4. B Ian Hutchins & Xin Yuan & James M Anderson & George M Santangelo, 2016. "Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-25, September.
    5. Loet Leydesdorff & Filippo Radicchi & Lutz Bornmann & Claudio Castellano & Wouter Nooy, 2013. "Field-normalized impact factors (IFs): A comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(11), pages 2299-2309, November.
    6. Andrew M. Odlyzko, 2015. "Open Access, Library and Publisher Competition, and the Evolution of General Commerce," Evaluation Review, , vol. 39(1), pages 130-163, February.
    7. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti, 2017. "Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 365-370, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Tekles & Loet Leydesdorff, 2019. "How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1187-1205, May.
    2. Judit Dobránszki & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2019. "Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 387-398, October.
    3. Liu, Xiaojuan & Wang, Chenlin & Chen, Dar-Zen & Huang, Mu-Hsuan, 2022. "Exploring perception of retraction based on mentioned status in post-retraction citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    4. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    5. Pedro Albarrán & Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2015. "Differences in citation impact across countries," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(3), pages 512-525, March.
    6. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    7. Behzad Gholampour & Sajad Gholampour & Alireza Noruzi & Clément Arsenault & Thomas Haertlé & Ali Akbar Saboury, 2022. "Retracted articles in oncology in the last three decades: frequency, reasons, and themes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1841-1865, April.
    8. Salim Moussa, 2022. "The propagation of error: retracted articles in marketing and their citations," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2022(1), pages 11-36, March.
    9. Bor Luen Tang, 2023. "Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, October.
    10. Jacqueline Leta & Kizi Araujo & Stephanie Treiber, 2022. "Citing documents of Wakefield’s retracted article: the domino effect of authors and journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7333-7349, December.
    11. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    12. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    13. Serenko, Alexander & Dohan, Michael, 2011. "Comparing the expert survey and citation impact journal ranking methods: Example from the field of Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 629-648.
    14. Briony Swire-Thompson & David Lazer, 2022. "Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 124-135, March.
    15. Jodi Schneider & Di Ye & Alison M. Hill & Ashley S. Whitehorn, 2020. "Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2877-2913, December.
    16. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2015. "Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 408-418.
    17. Bornmann, Lutz & Williams, Richard, 2017. "Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 788-799.
    18. Pentti Riikonen & Mauno Vihinen, 2008. "National research contributions: A case study on Finnish biomedical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 207-222, November.
    19. Per O. Seglen & Dag W. Aksnes, 2000. "Scientific Productivity and Group Size: A Bibliometric Analysis of Norwegian Microbiological Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 125-143, August.
    20. Juan A Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño-Ortín & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2012. "The Citation Merit of Scientific Publications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-9, November.

    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:pbio00:3000117. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.