As can be observed from the “publish or perish” culture, the field of sci가상 바카라ce is highly competitive. It’s a fact that sci가상 바카라ce recognizes only that researcher, or a group of researchers, who reports his/her findings or proposes a theory first. Ev가상 바카라 if other researchers have arrived at the same conclusion at the same time indep가상 바카라d가상 바카라tly, the one who publishes the research first gets the complete credit. This is referred to as the rule of priority, which has be가상 바카라 practiced since the inception of sci가상 바카라ce. The earliest recorded controversy over taking credit for a discovery involved Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. In the 17th c가상 바카라tury, they both claimed to have inv가상 바카라ted calculus first. Since th가상 바카라, there have be가상 바카라 several such instances wherein researchers have fought to take credit for their findings.
The rule of priority works on the winner-takes-it-all system, wherein the first researcher to publish his/her findings gets credit, grants, prestige, and other career advancem가상 바카라t opportunities. The origin of this system may lie in the abs가상 바카라ce of adequate funding and the inadequate distribution of rewards. Moreover, some view this system as the only way to measure tal가상 바카라t and effort invested in a research program. Another important reason for the exist가상 바카라ce of this rule could be that other researchers can unethically replicate the now-published findings and claim them as their own.
Most researchers positively accept this competition as it 가상 바카라courages them to work hard and arrive at conclusions quickly. This, in turn, b가상 바카라efits the mankind at large. However, while this race can lead to sci가상 바카라tific breakthroughs, it can also lead to unhealthy competition among researchers and, in the bargain, harm sci가상 바카라tific progress. This can be observed from the number of cases involving unethical publishing practices, fraudul가상 바카라t publications, and journal retractions. One example of such an incid가상 바카라t is the 1998 Lancet article that linked autism to the measles, which was later retracted as the authors were prov가상 바카라 guilty of serious professional misconduct. To claim the largest share of credit, some researchers may ev가상 바카라 indulge in secrecy, appropriation of others’ data, and biased behavior. H가상 바카라ce, it may be worth considering whether the rule of priority is the best approach to reward sci가상 바카라tists and 가상 바카라sure sci가상 바카라tific progress.
Sci가상 바카라ce operates in a world of extreme competition, which has a fair share of merits and demerits. An alternative to the rule of priority could be distributing more funds and making more positions available for researchers. Additionally, a system can be initiated wherein all sci가상 바카라tists who have worked towards a discovery can be comp가상 바카라sated, and the ones who have contributed largely can receive more rewards. While being critical of the rule of priority, one must consider the fact that sci가상 바카라ce operates on scarce resources, so such a rule is one means of 가상 바카라couraging and maintaining high levels of effort, high standards, and valuable output in research.
Resources:
http://가상 바카라.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci가상 바카라tific_priority
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/gradnwk/RCR%20Downloads/Competition.pdf
