IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v87y2011i2d10.1007_s11192-010-0323-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly

Author

Listed:
  • Hui Fang

    (Nanjing University)

Abstract

The aim of peer review is to separate the wheat from the chaff for publication and research funding. In the excessive competition, this mechanism would only select the wheat of mainstream. Up to now, almost all discussions on the consequence of the short-comings of peer review are limited to qualitatively description. I propose a model of “peer-group-assessed-grant-based-funding-system” combined with tenure system and over-competitive research funding review process. It is the first on the quantitatively investigation which dramatizes the current short-comings of the process. My simulation shows that it takes about two or three generations of researchers for the mainstream of a complicated research topic obtaining monopoly supremacy, with only the aid of the mechanism the model described. Based on the computation results, suggestions are proposed to avoid loss of self-correction capability on popularity determined single research direction which could be wrong on very complicated research topics.

Suggested Citation

  • Hui Fang, 2011. "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 293-301, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:87:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0323-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0323-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-010-0323-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-010-0323-4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vasiliki Plerou & Luís A. Nunes Amaral & Parameswaran Gopikrishnan & Martin Meyer & H. Eugene Stanley, 1999. "Similarities between the growth dynamics of university research and of competitive economic activities," Nature, Nature, vol. 400(6743), pages 433-437, July.
    2. Peter A. Lawrence, 2003. "The politics of publication," Nature, Nature, vol. 422(6929), pages 259-261, March.
    3. Cameron Neylon, 2009. "Funding ban could break careers at the toss of a coin," Nature, Nature, vol. 459(7247), pages 641-641, June.
    4. Trisha Gura, 2002. "Peer review, unmasked," Nature, Nature, vol. 416(6878), pages 258-260, March.
    5. L. Erik Clavería & Eliseo Guallar & Jordi Camí & José Conde & Roberto Pastor & José R. Ricoy & Eduardo Rodríguez-Farré & Fernando Ruiz-Palomo & Emilio Muñoz, 2000. "Does Peer Review Predict the Performance of Research Projects in Health Sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(1), pages 11-23, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katarína Cechlárová & Tamás Fleiner & Eva Potpinková, 2014. "Assigning evaluators to research grant applications: the case of Slovak Research and Development Agency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 495-506, May.
    2. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    3. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.
    4. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2012. "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly. Part II," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 607-616, February.

    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. Hernan Mondani & Petter Holme & Fredrik Liljeros, 2014. "Fat-Tailed Fluctuations in the Size of Organizations: The Role of Social Influence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-9, July.
    2. Alexander Kalgin & Olga Kalgina & Anna Lebedeva, 2019. "Publication Metrics as a Tool for Measuring Research Productivity and Their Relation to Motivation," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 44-86.
    3. Peter A Lawrence, 2009. "Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-4, September.
    4. Jochen Krauss, 2007. "Journal self-citation rates in ecological sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 73(1), pages 79-89, October.
    5. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2012. "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly. Part II," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 607-616, February.
    6. Amaral, L.A.N. & Gopikrishnan, P. & Plerou, V. & Stanley, H.E., 2001. "A model for the growth dynamics of economic organizations," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 299(1), pages 127-136.
    7. Stanley, H.E. & Gabaix, Xavier & Gopikrishnan, Parameswaran & Plerou, Vasiliki, 2007. "Economic fluctuations and statistical physics: Quantifying extremely rare and less rare events in finance," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 382(1), pages 286-301.
    8. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Rongchan Tuo & Jingshi Huang & Yang Yang, 2019. "The impact of video abstract on citation counts: evidence from a retrospective cohort study of New Journal of Physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1715-1727, June.
    9. Pandelis Perakakis & Michael Taylor & Marco G. Mazza & Varvara Trachana, 2011. "Understanding the role of open peer review and dynamic academic articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 669-673, August.
    10. Lorna Wildgaard & Jesper W. Schneider & Birger Larsen, 2014. "A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 125-158, October.
    11. Anthony F. J. Raan, 2012. "Properties of journal impact in relation to bibliometric research group performance indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 457-469, August.
    12. Katz, J. Sylvan, 2006. "Indicators for complex innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 893-909, September.
    13. Wilhite, Allen & Fong, Eric A. & Wilhite, Seth, 2019. "The influence of editorial decisions and the academic network on self-citations and journal impact factors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1513-1522.
    14. Marina Martinčević & Darja Maslić Seršić & Davor Jokić, 2023. "Contribution of CEE authors to psychological science: is the growing trend of publishing in non-CEE journals still present 10 years after its inception?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3703-3721, June.
    15. Michail Kovanis & Ludovic Trinquart & Philippe Ravaud & Raphaël Porcher, 2017. "Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 651-671, October.
    16. Beril T. Arik & Engin Arik, 2017. "“Second Language Writing” Publications in Web of Science: A Bibliometric Analysis," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, March.
    17. Stanley, H.E & Amaral, L.A.N & Gopikrishnan, P & Ivanov, P.Ch & Keitt, T.H & Plerou, V, 2000. "Scale invariance and universality: organizing principles in complex systems," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 281(1), pages 60-68.
    18. Hussain, Simon, 2010. "Accounting journals and the ABS quality ratings," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16.
    19. Калгин А. С. & Калгина О. В. & Лебедева А. А., 2019. "Оценка Публикационной Активности Как Способ Измерения Результативности Труда Ученых И Ее Связь С Мотивацией," Вопросы образования // Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 44-86.
    20. Carl Berning & Bernd Weiß, 2016. "Publication bias in the German social sciences: an application of the caliper test to three top-tier German social science journals," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 901-917, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Peer review; Research funding; Excessive competition; Mainstream; Mathematical model; Simulation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • C32 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes; State Space Models

    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:spr:scient:v:87:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0323-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.