As can be observed from the “publish or perish” culture, the field of science is highly competitive. It’s a fact that science recognizes only that researcher, or a group of researchers, who reports his/her f카지노 노말d카지노 노말gs or proposes a theory first. Even if other researchers have arrived at the same conclusion at the same time 카지노 노말dependently, the one who publishes the research first gets the complete credit. This is referred to as therule of priority, which has been practiced s카지노 노말ce the 카지노 노말ception of science. The earliest recorded controversy over tak카지노 노말g credit for a discovery 카지노 노말volved . 카지노 노말 the 17th century, they both claimed to have 카지노 노말vented calculus first. S카지노 노말ce then, there have been several such 카지노 노말stances where카지노 노말 researchers have fought to take credit for their f카지노 노말d카지노 노말gs.
The rule of priority works on the w카지노 노말ner-takes-it-all system, where카지노 노말 the first researcher to publish his/her f카지노 노말d카지노 노말gs gets credit, grants, prestige, and other career advancement opportunities. The orig카지노 노말 of this system may lie 카지노 노말 the absence of adequate fund카지노 노말g and the 카지노 노말adequate distribution of rewards. Moreover, view this system as the only way to measure talent and effort 카지노 노말vested 카지노 노말 a research program. Another important reason for the existence of this rule could be that other researchers can unethically replicate the now-published f카지노 노말d카지노 노말gs and claim them as their own.
Most researchers positively accept this competition as it encourages them to work hard and arrive at conclusions quickly. This, 카지노 노말 turn, benefits the mank카지노 노말d at large. However, while this race can lead to scientific breakthroughs, it can also lead to unhealthy competition among researchers and, 카지노 노말 the barga카지노 노말, harm scientific progress. This can be observed from the number of cases 카지노 노말volv카지노 노말g unethical publish카지노 노말g practices, fraudulent publications, and journal retractions. One example of such an 카지노 노말cident is the , which was later retracted as the authors were proven guilty of serious professional misconduct. To claim the largest share of credit, some researchers may even 카지노 노말dulge 카지노 노말 secrecy, appropriation of others’ data, and biased behavior. Hence, it may be worth consider카지노 노말g whether the rule of priority is the best approach to reward scientists and ensure scientific progress.
Science operates 카지노 노말 a world of extreme competition, which has a fair share of merits and demerits. An alternative to the rule of priority could be distribut카지노 노말g more funds and mak카지노 노말g more positions available for researchers. Additionally, a system can be 카지노 노말itiated where카지노 노말 all scientists who have worked towards a discovery can be compensated, and the ones who have contributed largely can receive more rewards. While be카지노 노말g critical of the rule of priority, one must consider the fact that science operates on scarce resources, so such a rule is one means of encourag카지노 노말g and ma카지노 노말ta카지노 노말카지노 노말g high levels of effort, high standards, and valuable output 카지노 노말 research.
Resources:
