Can’t see the forest for the sleaze

Mario Biagioli & Alexandra Lippman, eds: Gaming the metrics: misconduct and manipulation in academic research. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2020, 306 pp, $45.00 PB

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    One example of an audience being roused to indignation is a lecture of his on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsGYUB3nF6w.

  2. 2.

    See:https://newbooksnetwork.com/scholarly-communications-an-interview-with-helen-pearson-of-nature.

References

  1. Fanelli, Daniele. 2013. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med 10 (12): e1001563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jamieson, K 2018. Crisis or Self-correction: rethinking the well-being of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (115):2620–27.

  3. Kitcher, Philip. 2019. Review of Naomi Oreskes’ Why Trust Science?, Boston Review, Nov. 2019 at: http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/philip-kitcher-what-makes-science-trustworthy.

  4. Mirowski, Philip 2018. The future(s) of open science. Social Studies of Science 48 (2): 171–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip Mirowski.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mirowski, P. Can’t see the forest for the sleaze. Metascience 30, 31–35 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-020-00598-w

Download citation