Erratum: “Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence (Palgrave Communications, (2017), 3, 1, (16105), 10.1057/palcomms.2016.105);“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

Palgrave Communications

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Moore, Samuel ^a   Neylon, Cameron ^b   Paul Eve, Martin ^c   Paul O’Donnell, Daniel ^d   Pattinson, Damian ^e  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE   (Canada)

^e Research Square ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85019591452     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20551045     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2017.10     Document Type: Erratum

References (149)

1. Aldhous P (2011) Journal Rejects Studies Contradicting Precognition. New Scientist, 11 May, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition/, accessed 19 February.
2. Alpher RA, Bethe H and Gamow G (1948) The origin of chemical elements. Physical Review; 73 (7): 803–804.
3. Anderson MS, Ronning EA, De Vries R and Martinson BC (2007) The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics; 13 (4): 437–461.
4. Andrade R de O (2016) Sharp Rise in Scientific Paper Retractions. University World News, 8 January http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160108194308816.
5. Azoulay P, Zivin JSG and Manso G (2011) Incentives and creativity: Evidence from the academic life sciences. The Rand Journal of Economics; 42 (3): 527–554.
6. Babbage C (1831) Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And on Some of Its Causes, by Charles Babbage (1830). To Which Is Added On the Alleged Decline of Science in England, by a Foreigner (Gerard Moll) with a Foreword by Michael Faraday (1831). B. Fellowes: London.
7. Belluz J (2016) Do ‘Top’ Journals Attract ‘Too Good to Be True’ Results? Vox. 11 January, http://www.vox.com/2016/1/11/10749636/science-journals-fraud-retractions.
8. Bem D (2011) Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 100 (3): 407–425.
9. Bertamini M and Munafò MR (2012) Bite-size science and its undesired side effects. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science; 7 (1): 67–71.
10. Bishop D (2013) The Matthew Effect and REF2014. BishopBlog, http://deevybee.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-matthew-effect-and-ref2014.html, accessed 15 October.
11. Bissell M (2013) Reproducibility: The risks of the replication drive. Nature; 503 (7476): 333–334.
12. Brembs B (2015) The cost of the rejection-resubmission cycle. The Winnower. doi:10.15200/winn.142497.72083.
13. Brembs B, Button K and Munafò M (2013) Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience; 7, 291.
14. Burman LE, Reed WR and Alm J (2010) A call for replication studies. Public Finance Review; 38 (6): 787–793.
15. Calcagno V, Demoinet E, Gollner K, Guidi L, Ruths D and de Mazancourt C (2012) Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science; 338 (6110): 1065–1069.
16. Campanario JM (1993) Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly cited. Social Studies of Science; 23, 342–362.
17. Campanario JM (1995) Commentary on influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees’ evaluations. Science Communication; 16 (3): 304–325.
18. Campanario JM (1996) Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Science; 47 (4): 302–310.
19. Campanario JM (2009) Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: Accounts by Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics; 81 (2): 549–565.
20. Campanario JM and Acedo E (2007) Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology; 58, 734–743.
21. Casadevall A and Fang FC (2012) Winner takes all. Scientific American; 307 (2): 13.
22. Chang AC and Li P (2015) Is Economics Research Replicable? Sixty Published Papers from Thirteen Journals Say ‘Usually Not.’ 2015-083. Finance and Economics Discussion Series. Washington DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2015/files/2015083pap.pdf.
23. Chen C, Hu Z, Milbank J and Schultz T (2013) A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology; 64 (2): 234–253.
24. Chubb J and Watermeyer R (2016) Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Investigating the moral economy of (pathways to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia. Studies in Higher Education; 1–13.
25. Cicchetti DV (1991) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences; 14 (1): 119–135.
26. Claxton LD (2005) Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research; 589 (1): 17–30.
27. Cook I, Grange S and Eyre-Walker A (2015) Research groups: How big should they be? PeerJ; 3 (June): e989.
28. Costello LC (2010) Perspective: Is NIH funding the ‘best science by the best scientists’? A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies:. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges; 85 (5): 775–779.
29. Curry S (2012) PLoS ONE: From the Public Library of Sloppiness? Reciprocal Space, http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/04/01/plos1-public-library-of-sloppiness/, accessed 1 April.
30. Dean DG (1989) Structural constraints and the publications dilemma: A review and some proposals. The American Sociologist; 20 (2): 181–187.
31. Dickersin K (2005) Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ and Borenstein M (eds.) Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, pp 9–33
32. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmersx TC, Sacks HS and Smith H (1987) Publication bias and clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials; 8 (4): 343–353.
33. Dobbs D (2006) Trial and Error. The New York Times 15 January, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/15wwln_idealab.html?_r=0.
34. Ely A, Van Zwanenberg P and Stirling A (2014) Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches to enhance international development, co-ordination and democratisation. Research Policy; 43 (3): 505–518.
35. Eve MP (2014) Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies and the Future. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
36. Excellence Academy. (2016) Indiana University, http://iuhoosiers.com/sports/2015/6/25/GEN_0625153134.aspx, accessed 9 September.
37. Eyre-Walker A and Stoletzki N (2013) The assessment of science: The relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. Edited by Jonathan A. Eisen. PLoS Biology; 11 (10): e1001675.
38. Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One; 4 (5): e5738.
39. Fanelli D (2011) Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics; 90 (3): 891–904.
40. Fang FC, Bowen A and Casadevall A (2016) NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. eLife; 5 (February). doi:10.7554/eLife.13323.
41. Fang FC, Steen RG and Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America; 109 (42): 17028–17033.
42. Fitzpatrick K (2011) Planned Obsolescence. New York University Press: New York.
43. Fleck L (1979) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact; Bradley F and Trenn TJ (trans). Trenn TJ and Merton RK (eds). University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
44. Fortin J-M and Currie DJ (2013) Big science vs. Little science: How scientific impact scales with funding. PLoS One; 8 (6): e65263.
45. Funtowicz SO and Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Theory and Decision Library A-Springer: The Netherlands.
46. Funtowicz SO and Ravetz JR (2003) Post-Normal Science. In: International Society for Ecological Economics Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics. http://isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf.
47. Gans JS and Shepherd GB (1994) How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. The Journal of Economic Perspectives: A Journal of the American Economic Association; 8 (1): 165.
48. Goldacre B (2011) I Foresee That Nobody Will Do Anything about This Problem. Bad Science. 23 April, http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/i-foresee-that-nobody-will-do-anything-about-this-problem/.
49. Gonon F, Konsman J-P, Cohen D and Boraud T (2012) Why most biomedical findings echoed by newspapers turn out to be false: The case of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. PLoS One; 7 (9): e44275.
50. Goodrich DW (1945) An analysis of manuscripts received by the editors of the American Sociological Review from May 1, 1944 to September 1, 1945. American Sociological Review; 10 (6): 716–725.
51. Gordon R and Poulin BJ (2009) Cost of the NSERC science grant peer review system exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant. Accountability in Research; 16 (1): 13–40.
52. Grieneisen ML and Zhang M (2012) A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One; 7 (10): e44118.
53. Groppe DM (2015) Combating the scientific decline effect with confidence (intervals) BioRχiv. doi:10.1101/034074.
54. Guedj D (2009) Nicholas Bourbaki, collective mathematician: An interview with Claude Chevalley. The Mathematical Intelligencer; 7 (2): 18–22.
55. Hassell MP and May RM (1974) Aggregation of predators and insect parasites and its effect on stability. The Journal of Animal Ecology; 43 (2): 567–594.
56. Health Research Council of New Zealand (2016) Explorer Grants. Health Research Council, http://www.hrc.govt.nz/funding-opportunities/researcher-initiated-proposals/explorer-grants, accessed 19 February.
57. Herbert DL, Barnett AG, Clarke P and Graves N (2013) On the time spent preparing grant proposals: An observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open; 3 (5): e002800.
58. Herrnstein Smith B (1988) Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
59. Hill H and Pitt J (2014) Failure to replicate: A sign of scientific misconduct? Publications; 2 (3): 71–82.
60. Hoover WG, Moran B, Holian BL, Posch HA and Bestiale S (1988) Computer simulation of nonequilibrium processes. In: Schmidt SC and Homes NC (eds) Shock Waves in Condensed Matter 1987; North-Holland. pp 191–194.
61. Hoover WG, Posch HA and Bestiale S (1987) Dense‐fluid Lyapunov spectra via constrained molecular dynamics. The Journal of Chemical Physics; 87 (11): 6665–6670.
62. Ioannidis JPA, Boyack KW, Small H, Sorensen AA and Klavans R (2014) Bibliometrics: Is your most cited work your best? Nature; 514 (7524): 561–562.
63. Kennedy D (2004) The old file-drawer problem. Science; 305 (5683): 451.
64. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M and Altman DG (2010) Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biology; 8 (6): e1000412.
65. King M, West JD, Jacquet J, Correll S and Bergstrom CT (2014) Gender Composition of Scholarly Publications. Eigenfactor, http://www.eigenfactor.org/gender/self-citation/, accessed 7 January.
66. King MM, Bergstrom CT, Correll SJ, Jacquet J and West JD (2016) Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. arXiv [physics.soc-ph], http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.00376.
67. Kohn A (1999) Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA.
68. Kuhn TS ((1962) 2012) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Fourth edition, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
69. Labbé C (2010) Ike Antkare: One of the great stars in the scientific firmament. ISSI Newsletter; 6 (2): 48–52.
70. Lamont M (2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
71. Latour B (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
72. Latour B and Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
73. Lawrence PA (2007) The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology; 17 (15): R583–R585.
74. Lehrer J (2010) The Truth Wears Off. New Yorker 13 December, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off.
75. Lerner J and Wulf J (2006) Innovation and Incentives: Evidence from Corporate R&D. W11944. National Bureau of Economic Research, http://www.nber.org/papers/w11944.pdf.
76. Lindner MD and Nakamura RK (2015) Examining the predictive validity of NIH peer review scores. PLoS One; 10 (6): e0126938.
77. Lord RG, de Vader CL and Alliger GM (1986) A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. The Journal of Applied Psychology; 71 (3): 402.
78. Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hróbjartsson A and Gøtzsche PC (2010) Conflicts of interest at medical journals: The influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue—Cohort study. PLoS Medicine; 7 (10): e1000354.
79. MacCallum CJ (2011) Why ONE is more than 5. PLoS Biology; 9 (12): e1001235.
80. Marcovitch H (2010) Editors, publishers, impact factors, and reprint income. PLoS Medicine; 7 (10): e1000355.
81. Matzinger P and Mirkwood G (1978) In a fully H-2 incompatible chimera, T cells of donor origin can respond to minor histocompatibility antigens in association with either donor or host H-2 type. The Journal of Experimental Medicine; 148 (1): 84–92.
82. Meng W (2016) Peer Review: Is NIH Rewarding Talent? Science Transparency, https://scienceretractions.wordpress.com/2016/01/10/peer-review-is-nih-rewarding-talent/, accessed 10 January.
83. Merton RK (1968) The Matthew Effect in science. Science; 159 (3810): 56–63.
84. Merton RK (1988) The Matthew Effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis; An International Review Devoted to the History of Science and Its Cultural Influences; 79 (4): 606–623.
85. Miller S (2015) Excellence and Equity: The National Endowment for the Humanities. University Press of Kentucky: Lexington, KY.
86. Moran B, Hoover WG and Bestiale S (2016) Diffusion in a periodic Lorentz gas. Journal of Statistical Physics; 48 (3–4): 709–726.
87. Morgan D (2016) Lessons Learned, and How the Landscape Has Already Changed. Lecture presented at the Open Access @ UNT/Library Publishing Forum, University of North Texas, 19 May, https://openaccess.unt.edu/symposium/2016/live-streaming-oa-uc-press-lessons-learned-and-how-landscape-has-already-changed.
88. Mrs Kinpaisby (2008) Taking stock of participatory geographies: envisioning the communiversity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers; 33 (3): 292–299.
89. Munafò MR, Stothart G and Flint J (2009) Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor. Molecular Psychiatry; 14 (2): 119–120.
90. Networks of Centres of Excellence of Canada, Communications. (2015) Networks of Centres of Excellence, http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/index_eng.asp, accessed 13 April.
91. Nicholson JM and Ioannidis JPA (2012) Research grants: Conform and be funded. Nature; 492 (7427): 34–36.
92. Nielsen MA (2012) Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
93. Nosek BA, Spies JR and Motyl M (2012) Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science; 7 (6): 615–631.
94. Nowotny H (2014) Excellence Attracts Excellence--and What about the Rest? Reflections on Excellence and Inclusion. Lecture presented at the EMBO–EMBL Anniversary Science and Policy Meeting, Heidelberg, July, http://www.helga-nowotny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b160.pdf.
95. O’Connor P and O’Hagan C (2015) Excellence in university academic staff evaluation: A problematic reality? Studies in Higher Education; 41 (11): 1943–1957.
96. O’Donnell DP (2015) Could We Design Comparative Metrics That Would Favour the Humanities? Daniel Paul O’Donnell, http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/Teaching/could-we-design-comparative-metrics-that-would-favour-the-humanities, accessed 29 March.
97. OECD (2014) Chapter 6. The German Excellence Initiative. In: Promoting Research Excellence. OECD Publishing, pp 145–163.
98. Office of Excellence and Multicultural Student Success (2016) University of Toledo. http://www.utoledo.edu/success/excel/, accessed 9 September.
99. Open Science Collaboration. (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science; 349 (6251): aac4716.
100. Pagano M (2006) American Idol and NIH grant review. Cell; 126 (4): 637–638.
101. Peters DP and Ceci SJ (1982) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences; 5 (2): 187–195.
102. Potts J, Hartley J, Montgomery L, Neylon C and Rennie E (2016) A Journal is a club: A new economic model for scholarly publishing. Social Science Research Network (April). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2763975.
103. Psych Filedrawer (2016) The Filedrawer Problem. PsychFileDrawer.org, http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/TheFiledrawerProblem.php, accessed 19 February.
104. Public Library of Science. (2016) Who we are. PLoS, https://www.plos.org/who-we-are, accessed 12 May.
105. Ravetz JR (1973) Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. Penguin Books: London, UK.
106. Readings B (1996) The University in Ruins. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
107. Rehman J (2013) Cancer Research in Crisis: Are the Drugs We Count on Based on Bad Science? Salon, 1 September, http://www.salon.com/2013/09/01/is_cancer_research_facing_a_crisis/.
108. Resnik DB and Dinse GE (2013) Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. Journal of Medical Ethics; 39 (1): 46–50.
109. Resnik DB, Wager E and Kissling GE (2015) Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. Journal of the Medical Library Association; 103 (3): 136–139.
110. Roderick GK and Gillespie RG (1998) Speciation and phylogeography of Hawaiian terrestrial arthropods. Molecular Ecology; 7 (4): 519–531.
111. Roorda S (2009) The real cost of the NSERC peer review is less than 5% of a proposed baseline grant. Accountability in Research; 16 (4): 229–231.
112. Rothstein HR (2014) Publication bias. In: Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. John Wiley & Sons.
113. Schooler J (2011) Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature; 470 (7335): 437.
114. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D and CONSORT Group (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ; 340 (March): c332.
115. Secord JA (2015) Visions of Science: Books and Readers at the Dawn of the Victorian Age. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
116. Şekercioğlu ÇH (2013) Citation opportunity cost of the high impact factor obsession. Current Biology; 23 (17): R701–R702.
117. Sewitz S (2014) The Excellence Agenda Is a Trojan Horse for Austerity. Research, http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1346207, accessed 3 September.
118. Shirky C (2010) Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. Penguin Press: New York.
119. Siler K, Lee K and Bero L (2015) Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; 112 (2): 360–365.
120. Simons DJ, Holcombe AO and Spellman BA (2014) An introduction to registered replication reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science; 9 (5): 552–555.
121. Smith R (2006) Research misconduct: The poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine; 99 (5): 232–237.
122. Solomon DJ (2014) A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ; 2 (April): e365.
123. Steen RG (2011) Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics; 37 (4): 249–253.
124. Sterling TD (1959) Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—Or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association; 54 (285): 30–34.
125. Stilgoe J (2014) Against Excellence. The Guardian 19 December, https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2014/dec/19/against-excellence.
126. Stirling A (2007a) ‘Opening up’ and ‘Closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values; 33 (2): 262–294.
127. Stirling A (2007b) A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface / the Royal Society; 4 (15): 707–719.
128. Sustaining Excellence Awards. (2016) Wellcome Trust, http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding/Public-engagement/Funding-schemes/Sustaining-Excellence-Awards/index.htm, accessed 19 May.
129. Tartamelia V (2014) The True Story of Stronzo Bestiale (and Other Scientific Jokes). Parolacce, http://www.parolacce.org/2014/10/05/the-true-story-of-stronzo-bestiale/, 5 October.
130. The Economist. (2015) The World Is Going to University, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647285-more-and-more-money-being-spent-higher-education-too-little-known-about-whether-it.
131. The University of Tokyo Global Center of Excellence. (2016) Global Center of Excellence for Mechanical Systems Innovation. The University of Tokyo Global COE, http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/coe/english/list/category2/base7/summary.html accessed 12 May.
132. Tian X and Wang TY (2011) Tolerance for failure and corporate innovation. The Review of Financial Studies (December). doi:10.1093/rfs/hhr130.
133. Tijdink JK, Verbeke R and Smulders YM (2014) Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics; 9 (5): 64–71.
134. U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities/Regroupement des universités de recherche du Canada. (2016) Our Impact. U15, http://u15.ca/our-impact, accessed 18 May.
135. University Grants Commission. (2016) Universities (UPE). University Grants Commission, http://www.ugc.ac.in/page/Universities-(UPE).aspx, accessed 19 February.
136. University of Arizona Commission on the Status of Women. (2015) Avoiding Gender Bias in Reference Writing. University of Arizona: Tucson, AZ, http://www.csw.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/csw_2015-10-20_lorbias_pdf_0.pdf.
137. USC Center for Excellence in Teaching. (2016) http://cet.usc.edu/, accessed 12 May.
138. Usher A (2016) Massification Causes Stratification. Higher Education Strategy Associates, http://higheredstrategy.com/massification-causes-stratification/, accessed 5 May.
139. Vessuri H, Guedon J-C, Cetto and Mara A (2014) Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development. Current Sociology; 62 (5): 647–665.
140. Wang J, Veugelers R and Stephan PE (2016) Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Social Science Research Network; (January). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2710572.
141. Weigley S and Hess AEM (2013) Universities Getting the Most Government Money. 247wallst.com, http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/04/25/universities-getting-the-most-government-money/, accessed 25 April.
142. Weller AC (2001) Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Information Today: Medford NJ.
143. Wilson A (2011) Failing to Replicate Bem’s Ability to Get Published in a Major Journal. Notes from Two Scientific Psychologists, http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.ca/2011/05/failing-to-replicate-bems-ability-to.html, accessed 7 May.
144. Wittgenstein L (2001) Philosophical Investigations: The German Text, with a Revised English Translation. Blackwell: Oxford, UK.
145. Yong Ed. (2012a) A Failed Replication Draws a Scathing Personal Attack from a Psychology Professor. Not Exactly Rocket Science, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/10/failed-replication-bargh-psychology-study-doyen/#.VsZpH0Leezc, accessed 10 March.
146. Yong E (2012b) Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature; 485 (7398): 298–300.
147. Young NS, Ioannidis JPA and Al-Ubaydli O (2008) Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Medicine; 5 (10). doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201.
148. Young SS and Bang H (2004) The file-drawer problem, revisited. Science; 306 (5699): 1133–1134.
149. Zankl H (2003) Fälscher, Schwindler, Scharlatane. Erlebnis Wissenschaft. Wiley-VCH Verlag: Weinheim.