The indirect contributions to knowledge generation made by scholars through their contacts with others might be seen as methods they advance research. Contributions made indirectly might have a beneficial or bad impact. Improving the work environment in scientific communities, identifying fraud and statistical flaws in published studies, being a thorough peer reviewer, and being a committed mentor are all examples of beneficial indirect contributions. Being an exploitative mentor, participating in dubious or fraudulent research methods, and exaggerating the significance of research are all examples of negative indirect contributions.
All of a scientist's work, not just their particular accomplishments, should determine whether they get praise or criticism.
Accounting for indirect contributions
With Karthik Panchanathan and Paul Smaldino, we recently published an article in Perspectives on Psychological Science titled "Shifting the level of selection in science." In this piece, we suggest a new way of rewarding and recognizing scientists: putting more emphasis on the communities in which scientists work rather than on any one scientist in particular. We look at data from a variety of disciplines that have a history of changing the granularity of rewards and recognition. In addition, we discuss in further detail how this change could affect scientific policy.
What are the reasons behind the shift in recognition and benefits for scientific groups?
Take, as an example, the difficulties encountered by poultry farmers. Breeding chickens to lay the most eggs possible is a primary goal for poultry growers. The most productive hens would seem to be the ones chosen for breeding by breeders. But it's not so cut and dried; the social behavior of other hens impacts the production of each individual hen. In addition to being the most productive, the most vicious hens in the coop are also the ones that pluck each other's feathers and even eat their own. Consequently, overall egg production can be reduced as a result of selective breeding the most productive chickens.
How can this issue be tackled by breeders? It is possible for breeders to choose the most productive coops rather than the most productive individuals. Breeders take hens' indirect impacts on other members of the group into consideration when they select the most productive groups to breed. In one instance, this method increased egg production from 91 to 237 eggs per hen and decreased mortality from 68% to 9% in only a few generations.
Optimizing egg production is less of a problem than enhancing scientific inquiry. Still, many domains, such as team sports and professional organizations, have effectively implemented the underlying principle—moving selection away from people and toward the groups in which individuals operate.
Moving to a group level has so much more impact for what reasons?
With group-level rewards, everyone feels like they're in it together; in this way, everyone's success is dependent on the group's success. This discourages unhealthy rivalry amongst group members and encourages them to work together. To acknowledge scientists' indirect contributions, encourage collaboration, and even improve the scientific working environment, shifting selection toward groups offers an attractive, theoretically rigorous, evidence-based method.
Although group-level incentives have been around for a while, the effects of using them in the scientific community have been the subject of very little research. Now is a great moment to try out different ways of rewarding and recognizing scientists for their work since scientists are starting to realize the value of joint research. Considering this, we offer five realistic ways to change the degree of selection in research.
1. Change the focus of scientific evaluation to place a greater emphasis on group results.
Rewards in the scientific community can be tied to the success of groups like labs, departments, or scientific societies, much like employee bonuses in corporations.
2. Increase financing for positions that provide support.
Permanent posts should be established through scientific reforms for people whose main responsibility is not to conduct research themselves but to assist others in doing better research. Members of this category may serve as departmental statisticians, technicians, data managers, educators, mentors, or those who help scientists or other disciplines communicate with one another.
Group-level contests should be established.
Donors can incentivize researchers to tackle pressing social or scientific issues by launching contests. The Clay Mathematics Institute, a nonprofit organization, provides a $1 million reward for the solution of an unsolved mathematical problem as an example. Even more controversially, funders can push for teams with diametrically opposed scientists to work together to promote a contentious body of knowledge. As part of its Structured Adversarial Collaboration Initiative, the Templeton Foundation is using this strategy to study consciousness.
Research "policing" should receive further financing.
As a whole, policing helps curb destructive group dynamics in which some members exploit others for their own gain. One suggestion is to provide financial support to organizations like the Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in the US that assess the quality of research and perform audits of researchers. Individuals who participate in scientific critique, such as thorough peer review, fraud detection, or "red teaming," may also be eligible for grants and permanent jobs.
5. Establish cutting-edge methods for gauging indirect contributions.
Letters of recommendation as a measure of collegiality are one example of an outdated method of gauging indirect contributions; new methods are needed. Contributor Roles Taxonomy and citation-based algorithms are two existing approaches to figuring out how to distribute collective credit in articles with more than one author. It is also possible to devise systems to detect when scientists endanger their own or their colleagues' health and safety while conducting research.
You must be logged in to post a comment.