Editorial
Consequences of a competitive research culture
Article Info
What
is high quality science? Rigorous, accurate, original, honest, and
transparent were the words selected by scientists who took part in the
UK Nuffield Council on Bioethics' project
to assess the ethical consequences of the culture of research. The
project surveyed 970 scientists and held several discussion events in
the UK as well as meetings with funding bodies, publishers, editors.
Scientists
reported that they were motivated to do research to make discoveries
that benefit society and to improve their own knowledge and
understanding. However, they raised concerns that their working
environment did not support their goals and visions. Worryingly, for
some, the culture of research in the UK was such that it even encouraged
poor quality research practices, such as rushing to finish and publish
research and employing less rigorous research methods. High levels of
competition for funding and jobs and promotions were noted as driving
factors for these behaviours.
The Research Excellence
Framework (REF) results (to be released on Dec 18), which inform
allocation of core funding to higher education institutes, were a key
issue for those surveyed. Despite a change in format since the last such
exercise (eg, REF assessment panels were instructed not to make any use
of journal impact factors in assessing the quality of research
outputs), REF still causes researchers much anxiety, and misperceptions
and mistrust about the system exist. Scientists still think that
publishing in high-impact journals is the most important element in
determining funding, jobs, and promotions, along with article metrics
such as citation numbers.
The Lancet Series on Research: increasing value, reducing waste
also noted problems with reward systems—they incentivised quantity more
than quality and novelty more than reliability. “Research rewards and
integrity: improving systems to promote responsible research” is the
theme of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity
(May 31–June 3) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2015. Critical examination
of rewards systems is warranted by all those involved in the research
enterprise since existing approaches are putting immense pressure on
scientists and could be damaging the very practice of science itself.
