Is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush? Or, whether scientists should publish their intermediate results

Thomas Boyer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

A part of the scientific literature consists of intermediate results within a longer project. Scientists often publish a first result in the course of their work, while aware that they should soon achieve a more advanced result from this preliminary result. Should they follow the proverb ``a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'', and publish any intermediate result they get? This is the normative question addressed in this paper. My aim is to clarify, to refine, and to assess informal arguments about the choice whether to publish intermediate results. To this end, I adopt a rational decision framework, supposing some utility or preferences, and I propose a formal model. The best publishing strategy turns out to depend on the research situation. In some simple circumstances, even selfish and short-minded scientists should publish their intermediate results, and should thus behave like their altruistic peers, i. e. like society would like them to behave. In other research situations, with inhomogeneous reward or difficulty profiles, the best strategy is opposite. These results suggest qualified philosophical morals.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)17-35
JournalSynthese
Volume191
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

technical literature
reward
Birds
Intermediate
George W. Bush
Society
Reward
Proverbs
Peers

Keywords

  • Philosophy of science
  • Epistemology

Cite this

@article{327d0233e4834606bcfb50eccbc6dd61,
title = "Is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush? Or, whether scientists should publish their intermediate results",
abstract = "A part of the scientific literature consists of intermediate results within a longer project. Scientists often publish a first result in the course of their work, while aware that they should soon achieve a more advanced result from this preliminary result. Should they follow the proverb ``a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'', and publish any intermediate result they get? This is the normative question addressed in this paper. My aim is to clarify, to refine, and to assess informal arguments about the choice whether to publish intermediate results. To this end, I adopt a rational decision framework, supposing some utility or preferences, and I propose a formal model. The best publishing strategy turns out to depend on the research situation. In some simple circumstances, even selfish and short-minded scientists should publish their intermediate results, and should thus behave like their altruistic peers, i. e. like society would like them to behave. In other research situations, with inhomogeneous reward or difficulty profiles, the best strategy is opposite. These results suggest qualified philosophical morals.",
keywords = "Philosophy of science, Epistemology",
author = "Thomas Boyer",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "191",
pages = "17--35",
journal = "Synthese",
issn = "0039-7857",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "1",

}

Is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush? Or, whether scientists should publish their intermediate results. / Boyer, Thomas.

In: Synthese, Vol. 191, No. 1, 2014, p. 17-35.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush? Or, whether scientists should publish their intermediate results

AU - Boyer, Thomas

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - A part of the scientific literature consists of intermediate results within a longer project. Scientists often publish a first result in the course of their work, while aware that they should soon achieve a more advanced result from this preliminary result. Should they follow the proverb ``a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'', and publish any intermediate result they get? This is the normative question addressed in this paper. My aim is to clarify, to refine, and to assess informal arguments about the choice whether to publish intermediate results. To this end, I adopt a rational decision framework, supposing some utility or preferences, and I propose a formal model. The best publishing strategy turns out to depend on the research situation. In some simple circumstances, even selfish and short-minded scientists should publish their intermediate results, and should thus behave like their altruistic peers, i. e. like society would like them to behave. In other research situations, with inhomogeneous reward or difficulty profiles, the best strategy is opposite. These results suggest qualified philosophical morals.

AB - A part of the scientific literature consists of intermediate results within a longer project. Scientists often publish a first result in the course of their work, while aware that they should soon achieve a more advanced result from this preliminary result. Should they follow the proverb ``a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'', and publish any intermediate result they get? This is the normative question addressed in this paper. My aim is to clarify, to refine, and to assess informal arguments about the choice whether to publish intermediate results. To this end, I adopt a rational decision framework, supposing some utility or preferences, and I propose a formal model. The best publishing strategy turns out to depend on the research situation. In some simple circumstances, even selfish and short-minded scientists should publish their intermediate results, and should thus behave like their altruistic peers, i. e. like society would like them to behave. In other research situations, with inhomogeneous reward or difficulty profiles, the best strategy is opposite. These results suggest qualified philosophical morals.

KW - Philosophy of science

KW - Epistemology

M3 - Article

VL - 191

SP - 17

EP - 35

JO - Synthese

JF - Synthese

SN - 0039-7857

IS - 1

ER -