6533b857fe1ef96bd12b5083

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Solutions to replace quantity with quality in science.

subject

description

In their recent letter, Joern Fischer and others [1xAcademia's obsession with quantity. Fischer, J. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012; 27: 463–474See all References[1] tackled one of the major problems in modern science: the obsession with quantity. Perspicaciously, they showed how targeting for quantity has faded out creativity and reflection from science. Fischer and others ended their letter with the words: ‘Starting with our own university departments (but not stopping there), it is time to take stock of what we are doing. We must recreate spaces for reflection, personal relationships, and depth. More does not equal better.’ Utopian as it may be, we applaud this statement.Unfortunately, Fischer et al. do not provide concrete tools for academic transcendence from the status quo. We argue that the movement for bringing quality back to science should begin from national and international science politics and policy and have a special focus on senior scientists. We also provide two practical solutions to improve the current situation.To begin with, science policy is dictated by funding bodies, university leaders, publishing houses, and companies evaluating science rather than by scientists. Because scientists are human beings with basic needs to lead a good life (i.e., to survive, reproduce, and make ends meet for their families), their careers are inevitably dictated by boundaries imposed by funding possibilities – often leading down a precipitous path of publishing minor intellectual problems or the smallest publishable units. Thus, a proposition that scientists or departments should be the starting points for change [1xAcademia's obsession with quantity. Fischer, J. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012; 27: 463–474See all References[1] is likely to fail. Above all, national and international policies should be updated regarding the criteria for the science they are aiming to produce – quality versus quantity. These policy changes will first be followed by funding bodies and universities and then by publishing houses and companies evaluating science. Scientists will undoubtedly follow suit and embrace all changes aimed to promote quality.Considering academia, we believe that senior scientists are currently the ones having least time to allocate to scientific thinking. They face serious time constraints due to teaching responsibilities and the mountain of administration and bureaucracy associated with maintaining and expanding large research groups [2xGood news for the people who love bad news: an analysis of the funding of the top 1% most highly cited ecologists. Lortie, C.J. et al. Oikos. 2012; 121: 1005–1008Crossref | Scopus (2)See all References[2]. They must also perform secretarial duties, which are imposed on them as a result of institutional budget cuts, thus forcing the brightest minds of our era to shrivel with the filling of travel claims and time logs – the pursued economic efficiency has led to scientific inefficiency.We believe that a major part of the mental evolution of science occurs during the time devoted to hands-on data collection. Senior scientists rarely enjoy the luxury of having time to read about and contemplate the theory of their field, let alone participate in the gathering of primary data in the field or laboratory. Yet, we all recognize the importance of such personal experience, a fact most classically exemplified in biology by the prominent figures of Darwin and Wallace [3xOn the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Darwin, C.R. See all References, 4xContributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. Wallace, A.R. See all References]. At remote research stations or on expeditions, groups may spend 24 hours a day together, making extended and in-depth scientific discussions an inevitable consequence. If senior scientists are absent from this, they are also absent from the process of thinking and debate and cannot provide high-quality mentoring.For true impact, we propose two first-hand routes toward slower science [5xTaking time to savour the rewards of slow science. Alleva, L. Nature. 2006; 443: 271Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (5)See all References[5] and increased quality instead of quantity. As the first solution, we would encourage universities and funding bodies to promote the restriction of the numbers of students and junior researchers associated with seniors, and also to make field work or laboratory time mandatory for seniors. Needless to say, new funding forms should be devised that enable scientists to focus exclusively on science, without secondary obligations related to administration and teaching. Second, an obvious means to increase in-depth thinking would be long-term personal grants for experienced scientists focusing on solving particularly prominent, high-reward, high-risk questions of major importance, potentially accompanied by a low expected number of publications. The success of such grants should be then evaluated by the impact of single books or papers of true milestone character [6xThe Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Hubbell, S.P. See all References[6], not by the length of publication lists or combined citation metrics of masses of papers.As we have demonstrated, there are practical solutions to promote thinking and creativity in lieu of the domination of quantity. We encourage scientists to lobby for these and other changes in their scientific communities. However, because science is global, the problem as well as its solution is global.