Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Theoretical Discussion on the State of Scientific Research and Publishing: Critical Reflections and New Directions

  • Arena of Epistemology
  • Published:
Human Arenas Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present article raises a counterpoint to rethink about the state of scientific research amidst increasing pressure of academic publishing, growing disenchantment with scientific methods, and the issue of replicability of research findings around the world. The article discusses the major issues that upset the present-day academic publishing, along with highlighting the ingredients of scientific research. With increasing commercialization of education and human capital issues in science, linking of research output with academic hiring, institutional ranking, and funding has been discussed with potential implications. Based on previous researches, the current paper offers a matrix of researcher’s dilemma to understand the issue of career vs. knowledge orientation among researchers within the temporal choice of the dissemination of scientific ideas. The article also presents a roadmap for developing research orientation among kids with a vision of developing a culture of research since an early age and questions if the research has the potential to emerge as “the fifth R” after reading, writing, arithmetic, and programming.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As on June 7, 2019

References

  • Achinstein, P. (2001). The book of evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al′tshuller, G. S., Al′tov, G., Shulyak, L., Dronova, N., & Urmanchev, U. (1996). And suddenly the inventor appeared: TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahr, E. (2007). Weimar on the Pacific: German exile culture in Los Angeles and the crisis of modernism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, K. (2012). Trapped in mediocrity: why our schools aren’t world-class and what we can do about it. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41(1), 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bavdekar, S. B., & Tullu, M. S. (2016). Research publications for academic career advancement: an idea whose time has come. But is this the right way? Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 62(1), 1–3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bhullar, S. S., Nangia, V. K., & Batish, A. in press(2019). The impact of academia-industry collaboration on core academic activities: assessing the latent dimensions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bila, J. (2018). YouTube is causing stress and sexualization in young children. Retrieved May 25, 2019, from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/youtube-is-causing-stress-and-sexualization-in-young-children.html. Accessed 4 June 2019.

  • Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to social enquiry (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobtcheff, C., Bolte, J., & Mariotti, T. (2016). Researcher’s dilemma. The Review of Economic Studies, 84(3), 969–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogart, L. (1962). The Researcher’s dilemma. Journal of Marketing, 26(1), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, C. (2009). Informing innovation: tracking student interest in emerging library technologies at Ohio University. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. L., Braxton, J. M., Ream, T. C., & Moser, E. (2015). Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate, expanded edition. New York: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campaign for Social Science. (2018). Positive Prospects: careers for social science graduates and why number and data skills matter. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantore, S., & Passmore, J. (2012). Top business psychology models: 50 transforming ideas for leaders, consultants, and coaches. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, B. D. (2018). The case against education: why our education system is a waste of time and money. Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 25(1), 12–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, H., & Ke, Q. (2017). Research methods: what’s in the name? Library & Information Science Research, 39(4), 284–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciarli, T., & Ràfols, I. (2019). The relation between research priorities and societal demands: the case of rice. Research Policy, 48(4), 949–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarivate Analytics. (2017). It’s time to get the facts. Retrieved from https://clarivate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/d6b7faae-3cc2-4186-8985-a6ecc8cce1ee_Crv_WoS_Upsell_Factbook_A4_FA_LR_edits.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.

  • D’Ippolito, B., & Rüling, C.-C. (2019). Research collaboration in large scale research infrastructures: collaboration types and policy implications. Research Policy, 48(5), 1282–1296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with non-expert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(4), 13614–13620.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2014). Pure science and the problem of progress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 46, 55–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feist, G. J. (1997). Quantity, quality, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: is quantity most important? Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 325–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaley, A., & Rosen, L. D. (2016). The distracted mind: ancient brains in a high-tech world. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehlert, S. (2013). Turning disciplinary knowledge into solutions. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(5), S98–S102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, M. (2016). Publish and perish. The Journal of the American Dental Association, 147(6), 385–387.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, J. (2015). How to build a better PhD. Nature, 528(7580), 22–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, J., & Kimlicka, L. (2014). How to get published in high-impact journals. Retrieved June 4, 2019, from http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2014/06/06/how-to-get-published-in-high-impact-journals-an-essential-guide/. Accessed 4 June 2019.

  • Grech, V. (2019). Write a scientific paper (WASP): an overview of differences in styles between the sciences and the humanities. Early Human Development, 129, 96–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.12.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. C. (2004). Storytelling in teaching. APS Observer, 17(4). Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/storytelling-in-teaching. Accessed 4 June 2019.

  • Greenberg, D. S. (2007). Science for sale: the perils, rewards, and delusions of campus capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove, J. (2015). Social sciences and humanities faculties “to close” in Japan after ministerial intervention. Retrieved July 14, 2018, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/social-sciences-and-humanities-faculties-close-japan-after-ministerial-intervention. Accessed 28 Nov 2018.

  • Guénon, R. (2001). Man and his becoming according to the Vedānta (3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Sphia Perennis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harari, Y. (2014). Sapiens: a brief history of humankind. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helskog, G. H. (2019). Philosophising the Dialogos way towards wisdom in education: between critical thinking and spiritual contemplation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilliam, R. (2005). Galileo Galilei: father of modern science. New York: Rosen Pub. Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockley, J., Froggatt, K., & Heimerl, K. (2012). Participatory research in palliative care: actions and reflections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J. I. E. (2019). Hypothesis testing: the null hypothesis, significance and type I error. In Basic biostatistics for medical and biomedical practitioners (pp. 159–171).

  • Holmes, B. (2018). Hey, teacher! Leave those kids alone. New Scientist, 240(3202), 42–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L. S. (2010). Academic communication skills: conversation strategies for international graduate students. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iorns, E. (2013a). Research 2.0.1: the future of research funding. Retrieved June 3, 2019, from http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2013/06/12/research-2-0-1-the-future-of-research-funding. Accessed 23 May 2019.

  • Iorns, E. (2013b). Research 2.0.2: how research is conducted. Retrieved June 3, 2019, from http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2013/06/13/research-2-0-2-how-research-is-conducted. Accessed 23 May 2019.

  • Kastner, S., & Knight, R. T. (2017). Bringing kids into the scientific review process. Neuron, 93(1), 12–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S., & Hacking, I. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. D. (2015). Writing research papers: a complete guide. New Delhi: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, J. M. (2015). Publish or perish …but where? What is the value of impact factors? Nuclear Medicine and Biology, 42(5), 426–427.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, L., Wang, Y., Sinatra, R., Giles, C. L., Song, C., & Wang, D. (2018). Hot streaks in artistic, cultural, and scientific careers. Nature, 559(7714), 396–399.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lundin, R. A. (2014). Changing contexts for the Scandinavian Journal of Management: publish and perish? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(3), 263–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molassiotis, A., McCarthy, A., Charalambous, A., Gibson, F., Lopez, V., & Beaver, K. in press(2019). Common reasons why an academic paper is rejected: views from the editors. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 40, v–vi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2019.05.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nature. (2019). Being a PhD student shouldn’t be bad for your health. Nature, 569(7756), 307–307.

  • Negash, M., Lemma, T. T., & Samkin, G. (2019). Factors impacting accounting research output in developing countries: an exploratory study. The British Accounting Review, 51(2), 170–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. (2010). Cognitive linguistics and the history of linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 589–610). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001). What schools for the future? Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2015). Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 104(3), 931–949.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, S. L. (2012). America’s science problem. Scientific American, 307(5), 62–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plebanek, D. J., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2017). Costs of selective attention: when children notice what adults miss. Psychological Science, 28(6), 723–732.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L. (2014). Dewey’s “science as method” a century later. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1056–1083.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saetra, H. S. (2019). The ghost in the machine: being human in the age of AI and machine learning. Human Arena, 2(1), 60–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2016). The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature, 533(7602), 147–147.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, J. B. in press(2019). Statistical significance: don’t say it, don’t use it. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.05.023.

  • Shavinina, L. V. (2013). Where did all great innovators come from? Lessons from early childhood and adolescent education of Nobel laureates in science. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of innovation education (pp. 258–272). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, A., & Shea, S. (2006). The more you read, the more you know. Paediatrics & Child Health, 11(9), 566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, M. G., Brand, J. C., Rossi, M. J., & Lubowitz, J. H. (2018). “Publish or perish” promotes medical literature quantity over quality. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, 34(11), 2941–2942.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, S. (2003). Science and technology education: a high priority political concern in Europe. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, E. Hatzikraniotis, V. Tselfes, G. Fassoulopoulos, & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge-based society (p. 481). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzer, M. (2014). Information technology in education: risks and side effects. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 3(3–4), 81–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunley, R., Harding, L., & Jones, J. (2019). Realising creativity in management education: putting student energy into action. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(2), 172–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, N. N. (2008). Fooled by randomness: the hidden role of chance in life and in the markets. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tateo, L. (2012). What do you mean by “teacher”? Psychological research on teacher professional identity. Psicologia & Sociedade, 24(2), 344–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tibbetts, G. G. (2013). How the great scientists reasoned: the scientific method in action. Boston: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy and completely unprepared for adulthood (and what this means for the rest of us). New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zyl, C. J. (2018). Frequentist and Bayesian inference: a conceptual primer. New Ideas in Psychology, 51, 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2018.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Pearce, N. (2018). From ideas to studies: how to get ideas and sharpen them into research questions. Clinical Epidemiology, 10, 253–264. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S142940.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wolk, R. A. (2011). Wasting minds: why our education system is failing and what we can do about it. Virginia: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong, T. (2012). The mode of theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge combination: the significance of internship. World Journal of Education, 2(4), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n4p55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, K. S., & Abreu, C. (2017). Internet addiction in children and adolescents: risk factors, assessment, and treatment. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Author thank the two anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments immensely helped in the improvement and development of the current manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Management Sirmaur, Paonta Sahib, HP, 173025, India

    Sanjay Singh

Authors
  1. Sanjay Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjay Singh.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, S. A Theoretical Discussion on the State of Scientific Research and Publishing: Critical Reflections and New Directions. Hu Arenas 3, 214–228 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-019-00077-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-019-00077-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation