A study of the effect of academics unverifiability on research reward in science

PDF(1 KB)

Science Research Management ›› 2014, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (11) : 146-155.

Li Rong

Author information +

History +

Abstract

From the perspective of unverifiability, this paper begins by discussing the feasibility of academic quality being the criteria of science awards. A model explaining the probability of winning the prize is presented, in which the effect of peer reviewing not included in the framework of research tournament is considered. This makes the science reward model become more consistent with the unverified characteristics of academic quality. The effectiveness of peer reviewing for science awards in China was analyzed by taking advantage of the model. The most important conclusions include: (1) academic quality does not fit the criteria for science awards due to its unverifiability; (2) the probability for scientists winning the prize depends on the reviewing of peer scientists instead of the academic quality of their research achievements per se. (3) the peer reviewing for science awards at or above provincial level in China cannot separate research achievements with different academic quality; and (4) academic innovation is hardly the incentive target of science awards at or above provincial level in China. Most importantly, improving the effectiveness of peer reviewing for science awards is the leading policy implication.

Key words

academic quality / unverifiability / science awards / peer reviewing

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Li Rong. A study of the effect of academics unverifiability on research reward in science[J]. Science Research Management. 2014, 35(11): 146-155

References

[1] 王平,宋子良,刘爱玲.省级同行评议专家选择:理论与实现[J].科技管理研究,1997(4):38-40. [2] 江新华.论我国学术奖励制度的缺陷与创新[J].科研管理,2006,27(6):85-91. [3] 尚宇红,严卫宏.我国科技奖励体系的结构分析[J].科学技术与辩证法,2003,20(4):47-50. [4] 邱均平、谭春辉、文庭孝.我国科技奖励工作和研究的现状与趋势[J].科技管理研究,2006(9):4-7. [5] Clark,Derek J.,Christian Riis.Rank-order tournaments and selection[J].Journal of Economics,2001,73(2):167-191. [6] Taylor,Curtis R..Digging for golden carrots:An analysis of research tournaments[J].American Economic Review,1995,85(4):872-890. [7] Fullerton,Richard L.,R.Preston McAfee.Auctioning entry into tournament[J].Journal of Political Economy,1999,107(3):573-605. [8] Fullerton,Richard L.,Bruce G.Linster,Michael McKee,Stephen Slate.Using auctioning to reward tournament winner[J].Rand Journal of Economics,2002,33(1):62-84. [9] Che,Yeon-Koo,Ian Gale.Optimal design of research contests[J].American Economic Review,2003,93(3):62-84. [10] 陈志俊,张昕竹.科研资助的激励机制研究-分析框架与文献综述[J].经济学(季刊),2004,4(1):1-26. [11] 让-雅克·拉丰,大卫·马赫蒂摩.激励理论(第一卷):委托-代理模型[M].经济科学出版社,2002:188-189. [12] Cicchetti,D.V..The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions:A cross-disciplinary investigation[J],Behavioral & Brain Sciences,1991,14:119-186. [13] Rothwell,P.M.,C.N.Martyn.Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience.Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?[J],Brain,2000,123:1964-1969. [14] Gottfredson,S.D..Evaluating psychological research reports:Dimensions,reliability,and correlates of quality judgments[J].American Psychologist,1978,33(10):920-934. [15] Gottfredson,D.M.,S.D.Gottfredson.Criminal justice and(reviewer)behavior:How to get papers published[J].Criminal Justice & Behavior,1982,9(3):259-272. [16] Wolff,W.M..A study of criteria for journal manuscripts[J].American Psychologist,1970,25:636-639. [17] Starbuck,W.H..Turning lemons into lemonade:What is the value in peer reviews?[J],Journal of Management Inquiry,2003,12(4):344-351. [18] Wooldridge,Jeffrey M..Introductory Econometrics:A Modern Approach[M].清华大学出版社,2004:574.