The reward system of science
| Published date | 18 September 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-07-2017-0168 |
| Date | 18 September 2017 |
| Pages | 478-485 |
| Author | Adèle Paul-Hus,Nadine Desrochers,Sarah de Rijcke,Alexander D. Rushforth |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Information behaviour & retrieval,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management |
Guest editorial
The reward system of science
At the end of the 1950s, Robert K. Merton (1957, 1973) formalized the idea of a reward system of
science. Within the Mertonian framework, the scientific ethos is mainly comprised of four
institutional norms: universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organised scepticism. Its
basic precepts are derived from the scientific institution’s main objective, the “extension of
certified knowledge”(1973, p. 270). According to Merton (1957), “the institution of science has
developed an elaborate system for allocating rewards to those who variously live up to its
norms”(p. 642) as they strive to participate in this institutional objective. The notion of
recognition can be broadly defined as “the giving of symbolic and material rewards”(Merton,
1973, p. 429) by scientific peers; it is attributed to researchers who contribute to the advancement
of scientific knowledge through their original work. Recognition therefore lies at the foundation
of this reward system and constitutes, in the Mertonian view, both a driving force behind
researchers’actions and the pillar upon which scientific careers are –or at least can be –built.
Many decades down the line, the transformations of scholarly communication have led to
important modifications in the landscape of scientific recognition, which has traditionally been
based on authorship and citations but now can also extend to the growing use of social media
within the academic context. Furthermore, as well as the emergence of a multitude of new
phenomena in the social practices of scientific reward and evaluation, a number of theoretical
developments in science studies –at times derived from quantitative or qualitative research –
have emerged since the publication of Merton’s (1973) famous work. One such transformation
has been a “practice turn”in the study of science: whereas Merton focussed on the
institutionalized patterns of reward, from peer review to prizes, contemporary science studies
have sought to delve into knowledge production by observing sites of modern science and
research. This has important implications for the study of the reward system of science as it
stands today, and can bring to light how patterns of rewards and incentives shape the very
knowledge which can, and is, being produced.
Quantitative science studies and the bibliometrics field have yielded an enormous range
of metrics that, today, are often separated from their more qualitative, practice-oriented
counterparts. This has important consequences, given the fact that such developments may
transform not only the ability to gain insight and understanding of reward dynamics, but
might potentially also be transforming the very systems themselves. Questions surrounding
measures based on easily available large-scale data, sometimes disconnected from the actual
reality of research activity, are certainly emerging in the literature. Therefore, and although
a clear interest for the host of new data sources and modes of communication has increased
in recent times, the extent of their influence, and their validity and reliability as evaluative
and analytic tools, must continue to be probed.
Although we cannot hope to index or summarise all the changes affecting the reward
system of science, we believe the papers united here speak in many different ways to a
number of these developments and transformations.
The team
The guest editorial team for this special issue unites two important poles in the study of
scholarly communication and research evaluation, the Centre for Science and Technology
Aslib Journal of Information
Management
Vol. 69 No. 5, 2017
pp. 478-485
© Emerald PublishingLimited
2050-3806
DOI 10.1108/AJIM-07-2017-0168
The guest editors would like to thank all the authors for submitting their work and contributing to this
special issue, as well as the 32 reviewers for their time and valuable expertise.
478
AJIM
69,5
To continue reading
Request your trial