ArticleThe British journal of social psychology2021
Science as collaborative knowledge generation.
Article in The British journal of social psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thinking Outside the Black Box: Seven Guidelines for GenAI Use in the Ecological Sciences.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Guidance for sharing computational models of neural stimulation: from project planning to publication.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Review
- Guidance framework to apply best practices in ecological data analysis: lessons learned from building Galaxy-Ecology.GigaScience · 2025Article
- Article
- Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science practices?BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Shifting the Level of Selection in Science.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024Article
- Article
- Lessons for Theory from Scientific Domains Where Evidence is Sparse or Indirect.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
- Research integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of health science researchers at an Academic Health Science Center.Accountability in research · 2023Article
- From fossils to mind.Communications biology · 2023Review
- Developing research questions in conversation with the literature: operationalization & tool support.Empirical software engineering · 2022Article
- Aiding Reflective Navigation in a Dynamic Information Landscape: A Challenge for Educational Psychology.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- COVID-19 and social psychological research: A silver lining.Asian journal of social psychology · 2021Article
- Four propositions on integrated sustainability: toward a theoretical framework to understand the environment, peace, and sustainability nexus.Sustainability science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic points to the need for scientists to pool their efforts in order to understand this disease and respond to the ensuing crisis. Other global challenges also require such scientific cooperation. Yet in academic institutions, reward structures and incentives are based on systems that primarily fuel the competition between (groups of) scientific researchers. Competition between individual researchers, research groups, research approaches, and scientific disciplines is seen as an important selection mechanism and driver of academic excellence. These expected benefits of competition have come to define the organizational culture in academia. There are clear indications that the overreliance on competitive models undermines cooperative exchanges that might lead to higher quality insights. This damages the well-being and productivity of individual researchers and impedes efforts towards collaborative knowledge generation. Insights from social and organizational psychology on the side effects of relying on performance targets, prioritizing the achievement of success over the avoidance of failure, and emphasizing self-interest and efficiency, clarify implicit mechanisms that may spoil valid attempts at transformation. The analysis presented here elucidates that a broader change in the academic culture is needed to truly benefit from current attempts to create more open and collaborative practices for cumulative knowledge generation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.