Публикуйся, и кто должен погибнуть: ты или наука?

С наукой определенно что-то не так, поскольку количество ненадежных, заведомо подведенных под искомый результат и откровенно сфабрикованных исследований становится все больше и больше. В этой статье я утверждаю, что данная ситуация является прямым следствием системы оплаты оценивания труда, принятых в науке, и она может быть разрешена путем изменения критериев набора сотрудников, их продвижения по карьерной лестнице и финансирования их деятельности. Труд ученых оплачивается несоразмерно низко с их уровнем образования, если только они не занимают руководящих постов или не могут обеспечить себе высокие зарплаты за счет грантовых средств. Что касается должностей и грантов, то они присуждаются преимущественно на основании библиометрических данных. Соответственно, среди ученых идет «соревнование» за количество опубликованных статей, импакт-факторы и цитирование. Те из них, кто способен существенно увеличить число публикаций, будут вознаграждены, и для них откроются новые перспективы (т.н. эффект Матфея). Завышенные библиометрические показатели могут быть достигнуты посредством определенных действий – спорных по своей сути и выходящих за нормы научной этики, но которые могут показаться привлекательными для ряда ученых. Если бы оценка труда ученого не опиралась на библиометрические показатели, тогда бы такие практики не давали эффекта и в итоге вымерли бы. В настоящем тексте будут приводиться аргументы в защиту представленной позиции, за основу будут взяты материалы, представленные научным сообществом Венгрии, что являются своего рода «зеркалом» ситуации в целом.

1. Graeber D. Of flying cars and the declining rate of profit. Baffler. 2012;(19):66–84. Available at: https:// thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit

2. Prinz F., Schlange T., Asadullah K. Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2011;(10):712. DOI: 10.1038/nrd3439-c1

3. Osherovich L. Hedging against academic risk. Science-Business eXchange. 2011;4(15):416–416. DOI: 10.1038/ scibx.2011.416

4. McNutt M. Reproducibility. Science. 2014;343(6168):229. DOI: 10.1126/science.1250475

5. Begley C. G., Ellis L. M. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531–533. DOI: 10.1038/483531a

6. Colhoun H. M., McKeigue P. M., Smith G. D. Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. The Lancet. 2003;361(9360):865–872. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12715-8

7. Ioannidis J. P. A. Genetic associations: False or true? Trends Molecular Medicine. 2003;9(4):135–138. DOI: 10.1016/S1471-4914(03)00030-3

8. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;349(6251):aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/ science.aac4716

9. Johnson V. E., Payne R. D., Wang T., Asher A., Mandal S. On the reproducibility of psychological science. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2017;112(517):1–10. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2016.1240079

10. Pashler H., Wagenmakers E. J. Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7(6):528–530. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612465253

11. Ioannidis J. P. A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine. 2005;2(8):e124. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

12. Lei L., Zhang Y. Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997–2016). Science and Engineering Ethics. 2017;24(5):1409–1420. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7

13. Ataie-Ashtiani B. Chinese and Iranian scientific publications: Fast growth and poor ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2017;23(1):317–319. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9766-1

14. Casadevall A., Fang F.C. Reproducible science. Infection and Immunity. 2010;78(12):4972–4975. DOI: 10.1128/ IAI.00908-10

15. Collins H.M. Tacit knowledge, trust and the Q of sapphire. Social Studies of Science. 2001;31(1):71–85. DOI: 10.1177/030631201031001004

16. Edge L. The biggest challenges facing young scientists. Cell. 2014;157(4):763–764. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.04.022

17. Waaijer C. J. F., Heyer A., Kuli S. Effects of appointment types on the availability of research infrastructure, work pressure, stress, and career attitudes of PHD Candidates of a Dutch University. Research Evaluation. 2016:25(4):349–357. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvw008

18. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. A doktori fokozattal rendelkez˝ok életpályája. Stat. Tükör. 2011;(5):1–3.

19. Dany F. Mangematin V. Beyond the dualism between lifelong employment and job insecurity: Some new career promises for young scientists. Higher Education Policy. 2004;17(2):201–219. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300051

20. Magyarország 1989–2009: A Változások Tükrében. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal; 2010. Available at: http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/mo/mo1989_2009.pdf

21. CsécsinéMáriás E., Hagymásy T., Könyvesi T. Statistical Yearbook of Education 2013/2014. Budapest: Ministry of Human Capacities; 2015.

22. Chisholm-Burns M. A., Gatwood J., Spivey C. A., Dickey S. E. Net income of pharmacy faculty compared to community and hospital pharmacists. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2016;80(7):117. DOI: 10.5688/ ajpe807117

23. Zolas N., Goldschlag N., Jarmin R., Stephan P., Owen-Smith J., Rosen R. F., Allen B. M., Weinberg B. A., Lane J.I. Wrapping it up in a person: Examining employment and earnings outcomes for Ph.D. Recipients. Science. 2015;350(6266):1367–1371. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac5949

24. István P. Az Akadémiai Szféra és az Innováció: A Hazai FELSO˝OKTATÁS és a Gazdasági Fejlo˝dés. Budapest: Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó; 2010.

25. Munkaerő-Piaci Jellemzők (2003–2016). Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal; 2017.

26. Musselin C. European academic labor markets in transition. Higher Education. 2005;49(1–2):135–154. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-004-2918-2

27. Gábor T. Támogatott kutatócsoportok – Alulnézetből. Magy. Tud. 2009;170:481–484.

28. Merton R. K. The Matthew effect in science. Science. 1968;159(3810):56–63. DOI: 10.1126/science.159.3810.56

29. Kozak M., Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L. How have the eastern European countries of the former Warsaw pact developed since 1990? A bibliometric study. Scientometrics. 2015;102(2):1101–1117. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1439-8

30. Granˇcay M., Vveinhardt J., Šumilo E. Publish or perish: How central and eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015. Scientometrics. 2017;111(3):1813–1837. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2332-z

31. Brenner S. Frederick Sanger (1918–2013). Science. 2014;343(6168):262. DOI: 10.1126/science.1249912

32. Drahl C. In names, history and legacy. Chem. Eng. News Arch. 2010;88(20):31–33. DOI: 10.1021/cenv088n020.p031

33. De Haas W. National research agendas an international comparison. In: Graaf B. D., Kan A. R., Molenaar H. (eds) The Dutch National Research Agenda in Perspective. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2017, pp. 47–60.

34. Dutch National Research Agenda.Available at: https://wetenschapsagenda.nl/national-science-agenda/?lang=en [Accessed December 1, 2017].

35. Montagu M. F. A. Time, morphology, and neoteny in the evolution of man. American Anthropologist. 1955;57(1):13–27. DOI: 0.1525/aa.1955.57.1.02a00030

36. Brüne M. Neoteny, psychiatric disorders and the social brain: Hypotheses on heterochrony and the modularity of the mind. Anthropology & Medicine. 2000;7(3):301–318. DOI: 10.1080/713650607

37. Merton R. K. The normative structure of science. In: Merton R.K.; Storer N.W. (ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1942.

38. Macfarlane B., Cheng M. Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: Re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton’s scientific norms. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2008;6(1):67–78. DOI: 10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y

39. Pagano M. Don’t run biomedical science as a business. Nature. 2017;547(7664):381. DOI: 10.1038/547381a

40. Reich E. S. Science publishing: The golden club. Nature. 2013;502(7471):291–293. DOI: 10.1038/502291a

41. Abritis A., McCook A. Retraction Watch. Cash bonuses for peer-reviewed papers go global. Science. 2017. DOI: 10.1126/science.aan7214

42. Franzoni C., Scellato G., Stephan P. Changing incentives to publish. Science. 2011;333(6043):702–703. DOI: 10.1126/science.1197286

43. Abbott A. Hungary rewards highly cited scientists with bonus grants. Nature. 2017;551(7681):425–426. DOI: 10.1038/551425a

44. Leyser O. The Science “Reproducibility Crisis” – and What Can Be Done about It. In The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/the-science-reproducibility-crisis-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-74198 [Accessed December 3, 2017].

45. Seife C. For Sale: “Your Name Here” in a Prestigious Science Journal.Available at: https://www.scientificamerican. com/article/for-sale-your-name-here-in-a-prestigious-science-journal/ [Accessed November 27, 2017].

46. Hvistendahl M. China’s publication bazaar. Science. 2013;342(6162):1035–1039. DOI: 10.1126/ science.342.6162.1035

47. Gorman D. M., Elkins A. D., Lawley M. A systems approach to understanding and improving research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9986-z

48. Afonso A. How Academia Resembles a Drug Gang. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialscienc es/2013/12/11/how-academia-resembles-a-drug-gang/ [Accessed November 27, 2017].

49. Dzeng E. How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation: A Conversation with Sydney Brenner. MD, PhD, MPH. Available at: https://elizabethdzeng.com/2014/02/26/how-academia-and-publishing-aredestroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/ [Accessed November 12, 2017].

50. Allison P. D., Stewart J. A. Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review. 1974;39(4):596–606. DOI: 10.2307/2094424

51. Cole S., Cole J. R. Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review. 1967;32(3):377–390. DOI: 10.2307/2091085

52. Zuckerman H. Nobel laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. American Sociological Review. 1967;32(3):391–403. DOI: 10.2307/2091086

53. McDonald F. 8 scientific papers that were rejected before going on to win a Nobel prize. Available at: https://www.sciencealert.com/these-8-papers-were-rejected-before-going-on-to-win-the-nobel-prize [Accessed December 11, 2017].

54. Cheslock J. J., Callie T. M. Changing salary structure and faculty composition within business schools: Differences across sectors and state funding levels. Economics of Education Review. 2015;49:42–54. DOI: 10.1016/j. econedurev.2015.08.001

55. Robinson G. F. W. B. The 41st chair: Defining careers in the current biomedical research environment. Journal of Research Administration. 2009;40(1):213601799.

56. Merton R. K. The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis. 1988;79(1):606–623. DOI: 10.1086/354848

57. Schmidt-Dannert C., Arnold F. H. Directed evolution of industrial enzymes. Trends in Biotechnology. 1999;17(4):135–136. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-7799(98)01283-9

58. Maynard Smith J. Models of evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 1983;219(1216):315–325. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1983.0076

59. Pásztor L., Botta-Dukát Z., Magyar G., Czárán T., Meszéna G. Theory-Based Ecology: A Darwinian Approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2016.

60. Ariew A., Ernst Z. What fitness can’t be. Erkenntnis. 2009;71:289–301. DOI: 10.1007/s10670-009-9183-9

61. Ariew A., Lewontin R. C. The confusions of fitness. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 2004;55(2):347–363. DOI: 10.1093/bjps/55.2.347

62. Krimbas C. B. On fitness. Biology and Philosophy. 2004;19(2):185–203. DOI: 10.1023/B:BIPH.0000024402.80835.a7

63. Orr H. A. Fitness and its role in evolutionary genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2009;10:531–539. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2603

64. Eigen M., Schuster P. The Hypercycle: A Principle of Natural Self-Organization. Berlin: Springer; 1979.

65. Szathmáry E. Simple growth laws and selection consequences. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 1991;6(11):366–370. DOI: 10.1016/0169-5347(91)90228-P

66. Von Kiedrowski G., Szathmáry E. The monetary growth order. arXiv. 2012:1204.6590. Available at: https:// arxiv.org/abs/1204.6590

67. Piketty T., Saez E. Inequality in the long run. Science. 2014;344(6186):838–843. DOI: 10.1126/science.1251936

68. Piketty T. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2014.

69. Gregg A. For Future Doctors. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1957.

70. Levelt N., Drenth Committees. The Flawed Science Surrounding Diederik Stapel. Tilburg: Tilburg University; 2012.

71. Service R. F. Bell labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data. Science. 2002;298(5591):30–31. DOI: 10.1126/science.298.5591.30

72. Timmer J. The Stem Cell Breakthrough That Wasn’t. In arsTechnica. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/ uncategorized/2005/12/5761-2/ [Accessed December 4, 2017].

73. Kim M.-S., Kondo T., Takada I., Youn M.-Y., Yamamoto Y., Takahashi S., Matsumoto T., Fujiyama S., Shirode Y., Yamaoka I., et al. Retraction: DNA demethylation in hormone-induced transcriptional derepression. Nature. 2012;486:280. DOI: 10.1038/nature08456

74. Vastag B. Cancer fraud case stuns research community, prompts reflection on peer review process. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2006;98(6):374–376. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djj118

75. Van der Zee T., Anaya J., Brown N.J.L. Statistical heartburn: An attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell food and brand lab. BMC Nutrition. 2017;3:54. DOI: 10.1186/s40795-017-0167-x

76. Lee S. M. The Inside Story of How an Ivy League Food Scientist Turned Shoddy Data into Viral Studies in BuzzFeed. Available at: https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/brian-wansink-cornell-p-hacking [Accessed March 5, 2018].

77. Van der Zee T. The Wansink Dossier: An Overview. Available at: http://www.timvanderzee.com/the-wansinkdossier-an-overview/# [Accessed March 5, 2018].

78. Extance A. Data Falsification Hits Polymer Mechanochemistry Papers.Available at: https://www.chemistryworld. com/news/data-falsification-hits-polymer-mechanochemistry-papers/8369.article [Accessed December 4, 2017].

79. Timmer J. Epic Fraud: How to Succeed in Science (without Doing Any). Available at: https://arstechnica.com/ science/2012/07/epic-fraud-how-to-succeed-in-science-without-doing-any/ [Accessed December 4, 2017].

80. Peng R. D. Reproducible research in computational science. Science. 2011;334(6060):1226–1227. DOI: 10.1126/science.1213847

81. Vieland V. J. The replication requirement. Nature Genetics. 2001;29:244–245. DOI: 10.1038/ng1101-244

82. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(5):e5738. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

83. Statement by Three National Academies (Académie des Sciences, Leopoldina and Royal Society) on Good Practice in the Evaluation of Researchers and Research Programmes. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/ Publications/2017/08-12-2017-royal-society-leopoldina-and-academie-des-sciences-call-for-more-support-forresearch-evaluators.pdf [Accessed December 22, 2017].

84. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Available at: http://www.ascb.org/dora/ [Accessed December 22, 2017].

85. Vazire S. Our obsession with eminence warps research. Nature. 2017;547(7661):7. DOI: 10.1038/547007a

86. Benedictus R., Miedema F., Ferguson M. W. J. Fewer numbers, better science. Nature. 2016;538(7626):453–455. DOI: 10.1038/538453a

87. Szilágyi A. Ingyenenergia-gép Kifejlesztésére Ítélt Meg Félmilliárd Forintnyi eu-s Támogatást a Magyar Állam. Available at: https://szkeptikus.blog.hu/2017/06/29/ingyenenergia-gep_kifejlesztesere_itelt_meg_felmilliard_ forintnyi_eu-s_tamogatast_a_magyar_allam [Accessed December 11, 2017].

88. ERC Consolidator Grants 2017 Outcome: Indicative Statistics. Available at: https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/ files/document/file/erc_2017_cog_statistics.pdf [Accessed November 28, 2017].

89. Rockey S. What Are the Chances of Getting Funded? Available at: https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2015/06/29/ what-are-the-chances-of-getting-funded/ [Accessed December 11, 2017].

90. Gordon R., Poulin B. J. Cost of the NSERC science grant peer review system exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant. Accountability in Research. 2009;16(1):13–40. DOI: 10.1080/08989620802689821

91. Vaesen K., Katzav J. How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers? PLoS ONE. 2017;12(9):e0183967. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183967

92. McDonald F. A Study by Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel Has Been Accepted by Two Scientific Journals. Available at: https://www.sciencealert.com/two-scientific-journals-have-accepted-a-study-by-maggie-simpsonand-edna-krabappel [Accessed December 11, 2017].

93. Neuroskeptic. Predatory Journals Hit by ‘Star Wars’ Sting. Available at: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ neuroskeptic/2017/07/22/predatory-journals-star-wars-sting/# [Accessed July 30, 2017].

94. Tomkins A., Zhang M., Heavlin W. D. Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review. PNAS. 2017;114(48):12708–12713. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1707323114