Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:31:42.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodology and Scientific Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Max Albert
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Why is the average quality of research in open science so high? The answer seems obvious. Science is highly competitive, and publishing high quality research is the way to rise to the top. Thus, researchers face strong incentives to produce high quality work. However, this is only part of the answer. High quality in science, after all, is what researchers in the relevant field consider to be high quality. Why and how do competing researchers coordinate on common quality standards? I argue that, on the methodological level, science is a dynamic beauty contest.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 165 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Albert, Hans. 1978. Traktat über rationale Praxis. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Albert, Hans. 2006. “Die ökonomische Tradition und die Verfassung der Wissenschaft.” Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik 7: 113–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, Hans. 2010. “The Economic Tradition and the Constitution of Science.” Public Choice 144: 401–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, Max. 2006. “Product Quality in Scientific Competition.” Papers on Strategic Interaction 6–2006. Jena: Max Planck Institute of Economics.Google Scholar
Albert, Max. 2008a. “Introduction.” In Albert, M., Schmidtchen, D., and Voigt, S. (eds.), Scientific Competition. Conferences on New Political Economy 25, pp. 1–9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, Max. 2008b. “Product Quality in a Simple OLG Model of Scientific Competition.” MAGKS Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics 04–2008. Giessen: Justus Liebig University Giessen. http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb02/makro/forschung/magkspapers/04–2008_albert.pdfGoogle Scholar
Albert, Max and Jürgen, Meckl. 2008. “What Should We Expect from Peer Review?” In Albert, M., Schmidtchen, D., and Voigt, S. (eds.), Scientific Competition. Conferences on New Political Economy 25, pp. 257–61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, Max, Schmidtchen, Dieter, and Voigt, Stephan (eds). 2008. Scientific Competition. Conferences on New Political Economy 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, William and Nicholas, Wade. 1982. Betrayers of Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Camerer, Colin F. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Congleton, Roger D. 1989. “Efficient Status Seeking: Externalities, and the Evolution of Status Games.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 11: 175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, Partha and David, Paul A.. 1994. “Toward a New Economics of Science.” Research Policy 23: 487–521.Google Scholar
David, Paul A. 1998. “Common Agency Contracting and the Emergence of ‘Open Science’ Institutions.” American Economic Review 88: 15–21.Google Scholar
David, Paul A. 2004. “Understanding the Emergence of ‘Open Science’ Institutions: Functionalist Economics in Historical Context.” Industrial and Corporate Change 13: 571–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Arthur M. Jr., 2008. “Economics of Science.” In Durlauf, S. N. and Blume, L. E. (eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, Daniel and Jean, Tirole. 1991. Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gambetta, Diego. 2009. Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, Werner and Yaari, Menahem E.. 1992. “Explaining Reciprocal Behavior in Simple Strategic Games: An Evolutionary Approach.” In Witt, U. (ed.), Explaining Process and Change, pp. 23–34. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hackl, Franz, Halla, Martin, and Pruckner, Gerald J.. 2007. “Volunteering and Income – The Fallacy of the Good Samaritan?” Kyklos 60: 77–104. Longer version: Working Paper 415. Linz: Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler Universität, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, Christopher L. and Emre, Ozdenoren. 2008. “Durable Goods and Conformity.” RAND Journal of Economics 39: 452–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, David L. 1988. Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmot, M. 2004. The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity. New York: Holt and Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, Thomas. 1993. Truth versus Precision in Economics. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pratten, Cliff. 1993. The Stock Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Seidl, Christian, Schmidt, Ulrich, and Peter, Grösche. 2008. “A Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals.” In Albert, M., Schmidtchen, D., and Voigt, S. (eds.), Scientific Competition. Conferences on New Political Economy 25, pp. 235–55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Sokal, Alan D. 1998. “What the Social Text Affair Does and Does Not Prove.” In Koerttge, N. (ed.), A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science, pp. 9–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephan, Paula E. 1996. “The Economics of Science.” Journal of Economic Literature 34: 1199–235.Google Scholar
Stephan, Paula E. Forthcoming. “The Economics of Science.” In Hall, B. H. and Rosenberg, N. (eds.), Handbook of Economics of Technical Change.Google Scholar
Vanberg, Viktor J. 2010. “The ‘Science-as-a-Market’ Analogy: A Constitutional Economics Perspective.” Constitutional Political Economy 21: 28–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziman, John. 2000. Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar