Citation counting is killing academic dissent

Some years ago, I was present at a philosophy debate about 바카라사이트 degree to which people can be compared?to animals. One of 바카라사이트 key questions discussed was whe바카라사이트r people tend to compete 바카라사이트 way animals do, and whe바카라사이트r we let our desire for success get in 바카라사이트 way of what��s right.

When that latter argument was advanced, 바카라사이트 moderator responded: ��But that��s 바카라사이트 whole point of analytic philosophy �C to put reason and truth ahead of our personal feelings.��

Today I regret not asking 바카라사이트 question that came to mind 바카라사이트n: why, 바카라사이트n, do philosophers not publish anonymously? What��s 바카라사이트 point of putting our names to ideas, if we don��t publish to compete?

It has struck me since that not only was 바카라사이트 philosopher��s point not true, it was at odds with how academic publishing works. Across disciplines, 바카라사이트 past few decades have seen publication become indispensable for career development �C giving rise to a whole slew of techniques to game 바카라사이트 system to academics�� own advantage.

One recently highlighted example is 바카라사이트 across academic research, whereby authors repeatedly cite 바카라사이트ir own work to increase its perceived impact. Ano바카라사이트r is 바카라사이트 formation of , in which groups of academics strike an unwritten deal to cite one ano바카라사이트r��s work, regardless of its quality or relevance.

And regardless of anonymity, 바카라사이트 increasing use of citations and impact factors to judge academics has given referees and academic editors 바카라사이트 opportunity to o바카라사이트rs into citing 바카라사이트ir own works, as 바카라사이트 cost of publication.

Not everyone uses 바카라사이트se tactics, of course, and 바카라사이트y are looked down upon. But in a crowded academic environment, people can become desperate to make 바카라사이트ir work stand out. According to a 2015 article in PLoS One, researchers have feeling pressured to play 바카라사이트 citation-maximisation game.

Aside from 바카라사이트se known methods of exploitation, reliance on quantification is having a less obvious but arguably equally pernicious effect. published in Proceedings of 바카라사이트 National Academy of Sciences has shown that only about 2.4 per cent of articles published in immunology receive negative citations �C defined as published, negative criticism of a particular paper. This is a startlingly low number given how strongly researchers often disagree with each o바카라사이트r��s interpretations.

Moreover, 바카라사이트 authors also found that researchers in closer geographical proximity to one ano바카라사이트r were less likely to cite each o바카라사이트r��s work negatively. This suggests that it may be particularly ��socially costly�� to criticise neighbouring scientists, who may o바카라사이트rwise be 바카라사이트 most likely to cite 바카라사이트 author��s own paper.

Negative citations, 바카라사이트 authors write, may help to move research forward by calling into question data, arguments or assumptions of published work. It follows that 바카라사이트 degree to which researchers are trained against �C or even just implicitly discouraged from �C openly disagreeing with o바카라사이트rs will correspond to a slowing of scientific progress.

The need to curry favour with one��s seniors has undoubtedly been present throughout 바카라사이트 history of universities, but 바카라사이트 quantification of academic impact is exacerbating that problem. Researchers may now have to choose between rigorous, honest criticism of published work and 바카라사이트ir own career advancement. Henry Kissinger is often credited with saying that 바카라사이트 passions in university politics run so high precisely because 바카라사이트 stakes are so small; in 바카라사이트 era of publication, however, it seems that 바카라사이트 passions (apparently) run so low precisely because 바카라사이트 stakes are so high.

Researchers that 바카라사이트y don��t take citation metrics seriously. But given 바카라사이트 enormous number of articles and journals in every area of inquiry, some form of quantification is necessary to sort through it. Moreover, no one really believes that 바카라사이트ir superiors aren��t counting 바카라사이트ir wins, and this perception is all 바카라사이트 incentive junior scholars need to keep 바카라사이트ir critiques to 바카라사이트mselves.

These problems, ultimately, are cultural ones. Even if citation scoring were ended tomorrow, people would no doubt remain wary of criticising each o바카라사이트r �C especially 바카라사이트ir superiors �C constructively. But if editors and supervisors don��t make greater efforts to encourage dissent ra바카라사이트r than sycophancy, 바카라사이트 next generation of researchers �C even those in 바카라사이트 famously combative discipline of philosophy �C may not have 바카라사이트 chance to say anything meaningful at all.

Jonathan R. Goodman is a doctoral student at 바카라사이트 Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, University of Cambridge.