• Francesco Sylos Labini


Neo-liberal policies have the same general effect in the universities as they do in society as a whole. In society, their tendency has been to form large inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth. Similarly, in the case of higher education and scientific research, more and more funding is going to a few privileged universities and their researchers at the expense of the others. This is justified on the grounds that these universities and researchers are better than the others, so that it more efficient to concentrate funding on them. To find out how to distribute funding regular research assessments are conducted. But how accurate are these research assessments in picking out the researchers who are better from those who are not so good? It is argued that research evaluation as well as the pressure to reward the top-excellence is enhancing conformism and thus it is stifling the diversification of research, the essential element to develop innovations and new technologies. Is competition increasing researchers productivity and differentiation of research projects? How to test that a method of organization and evaluation of science is more efficient than another? Historical examples of discoveries in physics and mathematics in the past thirty years, as the super-high-temperature conductivity, the scanning tunneling microscope, graphene, and others, allow us to clarify how scientific research proceeds and how the findings of basic research are transformed into technological innovations.


Prime Number Scanning Tunneling Microscope Nobel Prize Scientific Misconduct Puerperal Fever 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Tony Judt, Ill Fares the Land, The Penguin Press, New York, 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Michael Young, The Rise of Meritocracy, Transaction Publishers, New Jersey, 1958.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laurence J. Peter, Raymond Hull, The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong, William Morrow and Company, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stephen Jay Gould, Mismeasure of Man, W. W. Norton & Co, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jerome Karabel, The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission And Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, And Princeton, Mariner Books, 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jean-Charles Billaut, Denis Bouyssou, Philippe Vincke, Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view, Scientiometrics, volume 84, pp. 237–263, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alberto Baccini, Antonio Banfi, Giuseppe De Nicolao, Paola Galimberti, University ranking methodologies. An interview with Ben Sowter about the Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking, Roars Transactions, 1 (2015).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robert Jungk, Heller als tausend Sonnen. Das Schicksal der Atmoforscher, Scherz & Goverts Verlag, Stuttgart, 1957.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leo Szilard, The Voice of the Dolphins: And Other Stories, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abraham Loeb, Taking “The Road Not Taken”: On the Benefits of Diversifying Your Academic Portfolio, lecture at the conference on “The First Galaxies, Quasars, and Gamma-Ray Bursts”, Penn State University, June 2010. See the web page:
  11. 11.
    Laurent Ségalat La science a bout de souffle?, Seuil, Paris 2009.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin Lopez Correidoira, The Twilight of the Scientific Age, Brown Walker Press, Boca Raton Florida, 2013.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Melissa S. Anderson, Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries, Brian C. Martinson, The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships, Science and Engineering Ethics, volume 13, pag. 437–461, 2007.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Donald Gillies, Selecting applications for funding: why random choice is better than peer review, Roars Transactions, volume 2, No. 1, pp. 1–14, 2014.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Imre Lakatos (1970) ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’ in J. Worrall and G. Currie (Eds.) Imre Lakatos. Philosophical Papers. Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 8–101.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alberto Baccini, Valutare la ricerca scientifica, Il Mulino, Bologna 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diana Hicks, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics, Nature 520, 429–431, 23 April 2015.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill, Show me the data, The Journal of Cell Biology, volume 179, No. 6, pp. 1091–1092, 2007.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donald Gillies, How Should Research be Organised?, College Publication, London, 2008.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Charlton B.G. ‘Down-shifting’ among top UK Scientist, Medical Hypotheses, volume 70, p. 465, 2008.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Donald Gillies, Selecting applications for funding: why random choice is better than peer review, Roars Transactions, volume 2, No. 1, pp. 1–14, 2014.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    John Bohannon, Who’s afraid of peer review?, Science, 324, 60, 4 October 2013.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dava Sobel, Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time, Walker, London 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe. Reinventing Physics From Bottom Down, Basic Books, New York 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Georg J. Bednorz, Alex K. Muller, Possible high Tc superconductivity in the Ba-La-Cu-O system, Zeitschrift fur Physik B, volume 64, pp. 189–193, 1986.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    lrike Felt, Helga Nowotny, Striking Gold in the 1990s: The Discovery of High-Temperature Superconductivity and Its Impact on the Science System. Science, Technology, & Human Values 17(4): 506–531, 1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Editorial, A brief history of some landmark papers, Nature Nanotechnology 5, 237, 2010.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, Scanning tunneling microscopy from birth to adolescence, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 59, No. 3, Part I, July 1987.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gerd Binnig, Heinrich Rohrer, Christoph Gerber, Edmund Weibel, Tunneling through a controllable vacuum gap, Applied Physics Letters, volume 40, pag. 178–180, 1982.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Andrei K. Geim and H.A.M.S. ter Tisha, Physica B 294–295, 736–739 (2001).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yitang Zhang, Bounded gaps between primes, Annales of Mathematics, pp. 1121–1174 Volume 179, Issue 3, 2014.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Donald Gillies, How Should Research be Organised?, College Publication, London, 2008.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grazia Ietto-Gillies, The evaluation of research papers in the XXI century, Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2012, vol. 6, pg. 1.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Herbert, D. L. Barnett, A. G., Clarke, P., et al., On the time spent preparing grant proposals: An observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open, 3, e002800, 2013.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Graves, N., Barnett, A. G., & Clarke, P., Funding grant proposals for scientific research: Retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ, 343, 2013.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kyle Silera, Kirby Leeb, Lisa Beroc Measuring, the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, volume 112, Numb. 2, pg. 360–365, 2015.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Donald Gillies, Selecting applications for funding: why random choice is better than peer review, Roars Transactions, volume 2, numero 1, pag. 1–14, 2014.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shahar Avin, Funding Science by Lottery, in U. Maki et al. (eds.), Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Science: EPSA13 Helsinki, European Studies in Philosophy of Science 1.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, Cesare Garofalo, The Peter principle revisited: a computational study, Physica A, volume 389, pag. 467, 2010.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Alessandro Pluchino, Cesare Garofalo, Andrea Rapisarda, Salvatore Spagano, Maurizio Caserta, Accidental Politicians: How Randomly Selected Legislators Can Improve Parliament Efficiency, pp. 3944–3954, 2011.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Beasley, Malcolm R.; Supriyo Datta, Herwig Kogelnik, Herbert Kroemer (September 2002). “Report of the Investigation Committee on the possibility of Scientific Misconduct in the work of Hendrik Schon and Coauthors”, Bell Labs.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gianfranco D’Anna, Il falsario Storia della più grande truffa scientifica che si conosca, Mursia, Milano, 2010.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Eugenie Samuel Reich, Plastic fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2009.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    John P.A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, PLoS Med, volume 2, No. 8, p. e124, 2015.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    John P.A. Ioannidis, How to Make More Published Research True, PLoS Med, volume 11, No. 10, p. e1001747, 2014.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Richard Van Noorden, The trubles with retraction, Nature 478, 26 (2011).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Richard Horton, Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?, The Lancet Vol. 385 April 11, 2015.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Guy Debord, La Société du spectacle, Éditions Buchet-Chastel, Paris, 1967.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    John P. A. Ioannidis, Fund people not projects, Vol. 477 Nature, pg. 529, 9 September 2011.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jean-Michel Fortin, David J. Currie, Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding. PLoS ONE, volume 8, No. 6, pg. e65263, 2013.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    David Budtz Pedersen, Vincent F. Hendricks, Science Bubbles, Philosophy & Technology, December 2014, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 503–518.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Claudio Sunkel, Excellence and the new social contract for science, EMBO Reports, pp. 1–4, 2015.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    David Cyranoski, Natasha Gilbert, Heidi Ledford, Anjali Nayar, Mohammed Yahia, The PhD factory, Nature 472, 276–279, 2011.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Julie Gould, How to Build a Better PhD, Nature, Volume 528, December 3, 2015.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kendall Powell, The future of the postdoc, Nature, pg.144, Vol. 520, 9 April 2015.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Paula Stefan, How economics shapes science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass., 2012.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gunnar Sivertsen, Bierger Larsen, Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: an empirical analysis of the potential, Scientometrics, volume 91, numb. 2, pg. 567– 575, 2012.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro, Counting Highly Cited Papers for University Research Assessment: Conceptual and Technical Issues, PLoS ONE, volume 7, numero 10, pag. e47210, 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Enrico Fermi Center and Institute for Complex Systems (National Research Council)RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations