Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly. Part II

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In our previous work (Scientometrics 87:293–301, 2011), a numerical model of over-competitive research funding in “peer-group-assessed-grant-based-funding-system” was proposed and the process was firstly investigated quantitatively. The simulation results show that the mainstream of a very complicated research topic could obtain monopoly supremacy with only the aid of the mechanism the model described. Here, the numbers of publications of cosmology back to 1950 are utilized to empirically test this positive feedback mechanism. The development of three main theories of cosmology, Big Bang, Steady State and Plasma Universe, are revisited. The later two, which are non-mainstream opinions, both state in their peer reviewed papers, that their theories fit the phenomena that support the standard theory. The ratios of publications of the orthodox theory, Big Bang, approximately satisfy the numeric calculating results of our model. The reason for the discrepancy between the model and actual situation is discussed. A further question about the controversy is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberts, B., Hanson, B., & Kelner, K. L. (2008). Reviewing peer review. Science, 321, 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alfvén, H. (1981). Cosmic plasma. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alfvén, H. (1990). Cosmology in the plasma universe: An introductory exposition. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 18, 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpher, R. A., & Herman, R. C. (1949). Remarks on the evolution of the expanding universe. Physical Review, 75, 1089–1095.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Alpher, R. A., Bethe, H., & Gamow, G. (1948). The origin of chemical elements. Physical Review, 73, 803–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berezin, A. A. (2001). Discouragement of innovation by overcompetitive research funding. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 26, 97–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondi, H., & Gold, T. (1948). The steady-state theory of the expanding universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108, 52–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicke, R. H., Peebles, P. J. E., Roll, P. G., & Wilkinson, D. T. (1965). Cosmic black-body radiation. Astrophysical Journal, 142(1), 414–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1917). Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie [Cosmological considerations on the general theory of relativity]. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preuβischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Part, 1, 142–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, H. (2011). Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly. Scientometrics, 87, 293–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, A. (1922). Über die Krümmung des Raumes [On the curvature of space]. Zeitschrift für Pysik, 10, 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, A. (1924). Über die Möglichkeit einer Welt mit konstanter negativer Krümmung des Raumes [On the possibility of a world with constant negative curvature]. Zeitschrift für Pysik, 21, 326–332.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Grivell, L. (2006). Through a glass darkly – the present and the future of editorial peer review. EMBO reports, 7, 567–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gura, T. (2002). Peer review, unmasked. Nature, 416, 258–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horrobin, D. F. (1996). Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger of mediocrity in clinical research. Lancet, 348, 1293–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, F. (1948). A new model for the expanding universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108, 372–382.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, F., Burbidge, G., & Narlikar, J. V. (1993). A quasi-steady-state cosmological model with creation of matter. Astrophysical Journal, 410, 437–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubble, E., & Humason, M. (1931). The velocity-distance relation of extra-galactic nebulae. Astrophysical Journal, 74, 43–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W., & Bond, N. (2001). Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 343–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanipe, J. (1995). The pillars of cosmology: A short history and assessment. Astrophysics and Space Science, 227, 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantha, S. S. (1996). Scientific productivity of Einstein, Freud and Landsteiner. Medical Hypotheses, 46, 467–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, O. (1966). Instead of cosmology. Nature, 211, 1337–1341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, O. (1971). Arguments concerning relativity and cosmology. Science, 171, 339–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kragh, H. (1996). Cosmology and controversy: The historical development of two theories of the universe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemaitre, G. (1927). Un univers homogene de masse constante et de rayon croissant, rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nebuleuses extra-galactiques [A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius]. Annales Sociente Sciences Bruxelle, A47, 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, E. (2003). Two world systems revisited: A comparison of plasma cosmology and the big bang. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 31, 1268–1275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, E. (2004). Bucking the big bang. New Scientist, 2448, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundmark, K. (1924). The determination of the curvature of space-time in de Sitter’s world. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 84, 747–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, W., & Bornmann, L. (2010). How accurately does Thomas Kuhn’s model of paradigm change describe the transition from the static view of the universe to the big bang theory in cosmology? Scientometrics, 84, 441–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narlikar, J. V., Burbidge, G., & Vishwakarma, R. G. (2007). Cosmology and cosmogony in a cyclic universe. Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 28, 67–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penzias, A. A., & Wilson, R. W. (1965). A measurement of excess antenna temperature at 4080MC/S. Astrophysical Journal, 142(1), 419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peratt, A. L. (1996). Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe. Astrophysics and Space Science, 244, 89–103.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. de Solla (1986). Little science, big science … and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratra, B., & Vogeley, M. S. (2008). The beginning and evolution of the universe. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 120, 235–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, B. (2001). Trouble with peer review. Nature Immunology, 2, 277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, M., & Clarke, R. W. (1961). An examination of the steady-state model in the light of some recent observations of radio sources. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 122, 349–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarmah, B. P., Banerjee, S. K., Dhurandhar, S. V., & Narlikar, J. V. (2006). On searches for gravitational waves from mini-creation events by laser interferometric detectors. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369, 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slipher, V. M. (1912). The radial velocity of the Andromeda Nebula. Lowell Observatory Bulletin, 58, 56–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slipher, V. M. (1917). Nebula. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 56, 403–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (1997). Peer review: Reform or revolution? British Medical Journal, 315, 759–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spier, R. E. (2002a). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20, 357–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spier, R. E. (2002b). Peer review and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spier, R. E., & Bird, S. J. (2003). On the management of funding of research in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 298–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Eerden, C., & Saelens, F. H. (1991). The use of science and technology indicators in strategic planning. Long Range Planning, 24, 18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vishwakarma, R. G., & Narlikar, J. V. (2007). Modeling repulsive gravity with creation. Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 28, 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Way, M., & Nussbaumer, H. (2011). Lemaitre’s Hubble relationship. Physics Today, 64, 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, C. (1924). De Sitters Kosmologie und die Radiabewegungen der Spiralnebel [De Sitter’s cosmology and the radial motions of the spiral nebulae]. Astronomische Nachrichten, 222, 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, R. S. (2008). A peer review how-to. Science, 319, 32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Wendy Powell in Valleyford, Washington USA for editing English of our manuscript. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for useful suggestions improving this contribution. This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China under Grant 2011CBA00107.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Library of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, China

    Xuan Zhen Liu

  2. School of Electronic Science and Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry for Life Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093, China

    Hui Fang

Authors
  1. Xuan Zhen Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hui Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui Fang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, X.Z., Fang, H. Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly. Part II. Scientometrics 90, 607–616 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0526-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0526-3

Keywords

MSC

JEL

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy