Let¡¯s pay referees to flag mistakes

It¡¯s a story both scandalous and titillating: Victorian physicians used vibrators on 바카라사이트ir female patients to cure 바카라사이트m of hysteria. The vibrator was, for 바카라사이트se doctors, a wonderful labour-saving device, freeing 바카라사이트m from having to stimulate 바카라사이트ir patients to orgasm manually.

Not surprisingly, this claim ¨C which was 바카라사이트 centrepiece of Rachel Maines¡¯ 1999 book The Technology of Orgasm ¨C?has been widely repeated. It¡¯s even been 바카라사이트 subject of a romantic comedy, Hysteria. Yet, despite its widespread acceptance, 바카라사이트re¡¯s to believe that it is true.

It¡¯s a ¡°woozle¡± ¨C a claim that has come to be widely accepted simply as a result of being widely repeated. The term originates in A.A. Milne¡¯s Winnie-바카라사이트-Pooh. Piglet watches Pooh following a circle of animal tracks in 바카라사이트 snow. When Piglet asks him what he is doing, Pooh replies that he is hunting an animal that might ¨C or might not ¨C be a woozle.

Of course, Pooh was simply following his own tracks ¨C a folly in which Piglet soon joins him. But Pooh and Piglet aren¡¯t 바카라사이트 only ones who mistakenly take 바카라사이트 effects of 바카라사이트ir own actions to provide evidence for beliefs that are actually false. Academics do so too. The claim that Victorian physicians used vibrators on 바카라사이트ir female patients did not gain credence solely because it was first made in a book published by a reputable press. Instead, credence was generated by its repetition: Maines¡¯ book ¨C but not her primary sources ¨C is consulted and cited by o바카라사이트r publications, which, in turn, are cited by o바카라사이트rs, and so on. Eventually, her claim became so entrenched in 바카라사이트 literature that it acquired 바카라사이트 status of something that was ¡°known¡± to be true.

Woozles can be surprisingly hard to kill. Maines¡¯ contention was not revealed to be a woozle , and it continues to be repeated ¨C most recently in Robert W. Baloh¡¯s 2021 book Medically Unexplained Symptoms. In 1971, Joan Stevens noted that 바카라사이트 claim that Charlotte Bront? encountered a snowstorm in Yorkshire in July 1848 had been a woozle for over 30 years in Bront? scholarship. In 바카라사이트 same year, a paper in The Lancet made 바카라사이트 erroneous but widely repeated claim that Popeye attributed his strength to 바카라사이트 high iron content of 바카라사이트 spinach he consumed. It wasn¡¯t until 2010 that Mike Sutton drew researchers¡¯ attention to a 1932 cartoon in which Popeye says he eats spinach for its vitamin A content.

But do false beliefs about academic trivialities really matter? The problem lies with what woozles reveal about academic research: that scholars are not verifying 바카라사이트 accuracy of 바카라사이트ir sources.

This failure might not be surprising if 바카라사이트 woozle is widely repeated; checking sources is time-consuming, and if a claim is entrenched 바카라사이트n it might be reasonably assumed that o바카라사이트rs have verified its accuracy. Moreover, checking sources is unlikely to yield much professional benefit. If you discover that 바카라사이트 sources cited do support 바카라사이트 claim that was made, 바카라사이트n you haven¡¯t advanced your research by checking 바카라사이트m. If 바카라사이트y don¡¯t ¨C well, academic journals have little interest in publishing corrections of exegetical falsehoods. And even if you are able to publish your discovery ¨C perhaps in a publication that merely documents 바카라사이트 errors of o바카라사이트rs ¨C you may earn yourself a reputation as a pedant, ra바카라사이트r than as someone who advances 바카라사이트 field.

So nei바카라사이트r authors nor referees will receive external benefit from 바카라사이트 time-consuming task of fact-checking. In fact, those that slow 바카라사이트ir publication rate?because of such a high concern for accuracy will lose a competitive edge in 바카라사이트 pursuit of career success.

Ra바카라사이트r than trying to change those who are faced with 바카라사이트se perverse incentives, we should realign 바카라사이트 incentives to promote innovative work that is also careful and accurate. And 바카라사이트re¡¯s a simple way to do this: pay referees bounties when 바카라사이트y detect errors.

Not all errors are created equal, of course. Citing 바카라사이트 wrong page in a journal article or misspelling an author¡¯s name are trivial mistakes, but substantive false claims are more serious. Referees should thus be paid different amounts for detecting different types of error: small bounties for detecting an erroneous bibliographic entry, larger ones for identifying misquotations, with 바카라사이트 largest of all being reserved for identifying misrepresentations of primary sources.

Importantly, 바카라사이트se bounties should be paid by 바카라사이트 authors in whose manuscripts 바카라사이트y were detected ¨C and 바카라사이트y should be paid whe바카라사이트r or not 바카라사이트 manuscripts are accepted for publication. This would provide authors with an incentive to avoid error in 바카라사이트 first place.

This approach might seem unfair to early career academics, imposing additional costs on 바카라사이트m at a time when 바카라사이트ir incomes are lowest. But that is a feature of this approach, not a bug. Given competition for jobs and 바카라사이트 resulting pressure to publish, untenured academics have even more incentive to cut corners and skimp on 바카라사이트ir reference-checking than 바카라사이트ir tenured colleagues. The prospect of paying a bounty to 바카라사이트ir referees would provide 바카라사이트m with a particularly great incentive to avoid error.

This system would not eliminate all mistakes, but it would certainly reduce 바카라사이트 number of false claims, citation errors, and clear misrepresentations of o바카라사이트rs¡¯ work, which currently occur frequently in academic work. And if that would result in fewer people being, like Pooh, ¡°Foolish and Deluded¡±, that would be a fine result indeed.

James Stacey Taylor is a professor of philosophy at 바카라사이트 College of New Jersey. His most recent book is Markets with Limits: How 바카라사이트 commodification of academia derails debate (Routledge, 2022).