Scientists' Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right

PLoS Biol. 2016 May 12;14(5):e1002460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460. eCollection 2016 May.

Abstract

Replication is vital for increasing precision and accuracy of scientific claims. However, when replications "succeed" or "fail," they could have reputational consequences for the claim's originators. Surveys of United States adults (N = 4,786), undergraduates (N = 428), and researchers (N = 313) showed that reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true. When comparing one scientist that produced boring but certain results with another that produced exciting but uncertain results, opinion favored the former despite researchers' belief in more rewards for the latter. Considering idealized views of scientific practices offers an opportunity to address incentives to reward both innovation and verification.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Humans
  • Inventions
  • Motivation
  • Public Opinion
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Research Personnel* / psychology
  • Research Personnel* / statistics & numerical data
  • Reward
  • Science / statistics & numerical data*
  • United States

Grants and funding

This research was supported (in part) by the Fetzer Franklin Fund of the John E. Fetzer Memorial Trust (http://www.fetzer-franklin-fund.org/). BAN received a grant from this fund. CRE and JRA have taken part in the project associated with that grant. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.