• Login
    View Item 
    •   DSpace Home
    • A) Producción científica UCSC
    • Artículos Científicos
    • View Item
    •   DSpace Home
    • A) Producción científica UCSC
    • Artículos Científicos
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    What if peer-review process is killing thinking-out-of-the-box science?

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    What if Peer-Review Process Is Killing Thinking-Out-of-the-Box Science.pdf (251.5Kb)
    Date
    2022
    Author
    Riera, Rodrigo
    Rodríguez, R.
    Publisher
    Frontiers
    Description
    Artículo de publicación WOS - SCOPUS
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Scientific ideas and hypotheses may be accepted, refuted, criticized, or subject to rebuttal by researchers (e.g., Mayo and Spanos, 2008). Dogmas do not belong to the territory of science, and ending up in uncharted territories should be the most encouraging and hopeful achievement for a researcher (Lampel, 2016). However, modern science is quite different than the ideal image of a scientist in a lab coat looking for new results or staring to the horizon. The scientific world, instead of being supported by inspiration in search of new ideas or deep thinking, is now dominated by other aspects (Byers, 2014; King et al., 2018). Scientists are meticulously evaluated by their work, i.e., scientific contributions, funded projects, student tuition, and outreach activities, among others (Bornmann and Marx, 2014). To be promoted or to get a permanent position, several “tick boxes” need to be filled, especially those concerning paper production and funding securing (e.g., Moher et al., 2018; Schimanski and Alperin, 2018). These are often disconnected from the genuine goals of science, such as producing out-of-the-box ideas that are generally difficult to spread and accept (Wang et al., 2017; Mairesse and Pezzoni, 2021) or subjecting previous proposals to empirical testing to explore their reliability, a type of task that Scheiner (2013) considered as deficient in ecology. Thus, most researchers spend their time trying to get the ball rolling in this environment (Milem et al., 2000; Link et al., 2008).
    URI
    http://repositoriodigital.ucsc.cl/handle/25022009/3028
    Collections
    • Artículos Científicos

    UCSC
    UCSC | Contact Us | Send Feedback
     

     

    Browse

    All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    UCSC
    UCSC | Contact Us | Send Feedback