CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Research, Science, and AcademiaOpinion Dynamics and Social Influencescientometrics and bibliometrics research

Persistence of false paradigms in low-power sciences

Open access
Akerlof, George A., Michaillat, Pascal·2018·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1816454115PMC PMC6310847
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Significance: It is believed that a lack of experimental evidence (typical in the social sciences) slows but does not prevent the adoption of true theories. We evaluate this belief using a model of scientific research and promotion in which tenured scientists are slightly biased toward tenure candidates with similar beliefs. We find that when a science lacks evidence to discriminate between theories, or when tenure decisions do not rely on available evidence, true theories may not be adopted. The nonadoption of heliocentric theory in the 16th century, the persistence of bloodletting in the 19th century, the nonadoption of underconsumption theory in the early 20th century, and the persistence of radical mastectomy in the 20th century illustrate such risk.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1816454115

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The safer career path of extending or applying the Bayesian framework rather than developing alternatives creates a selection pressure in the academic ecosystem that favors theoretical conformity over innovation or critique.

    “The safer career path involves extending or applying the Bayesian framework rather than developing alternatives or exposing its limitations, thereby creating a selection pressure in the academic ecosystem that favors theoretical conformity over innovation or critique (Akerlof and Michaillat 2018).”

    From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Akerlof and Michaillat 2018

    The Model of Science and Population Dynamics sections describe how tenure decisions favor candidates who share evaluators’ paradigms, allowing an entrenched paradigm to prevail over a better one. The paper does not identify the Bayesian framework or compare the career prospects of extending it with developing alternatives or exposing its limitations. No page numbers are provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Akerlof, G. A., & Michaillat, P.
Affiliations
  • Georgetown University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Akerlof, George A.
  • Michaillat, Pascal
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2018-12-06
Volume
115
Issue
52
Pages
13228-13233
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1816454115
PMC
PMC6310847
OpenAlex
W2902442479
Cited by
54
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8
FWCI
8.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
scientific progress, tenure decisions, homophily, statistical power, scientific careers, evidence-based decision making
MeSH terms
Biological Science Disciplines, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Research Design, Evidence-Based Medicine, History, 16th Century, History, 19th Century, History, 20th Century, History, 21st Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review