Constructing a Broader and More Inclusive Value System in Science
Abstract
A scientific culture that welcomes a diversity of participants and addresses a broad range of questions is critical to the success of the scientific enterprise and essential for engaging the public in science. By favoring behaviors and practices that result in a narrow set of outcomes, our current scientific culture may lower the diversity of the scientific workforce, limit the range and relevance of scientific pursuits, and restrict the scope of interdisciplinary collaboration and public engagement. The scientific community will reach its full intellectual potential and secure public support through thorough, multitiered initiatives that aim to change individual and institutional behaviors, shift current reward structures to reflect a wider set of values, and explicitly consider societal benefits in the establishment of research agendas. We discuss some shortcomings and costs of the current value system and provide some guidelines for the development of initiatives that transcend such limitations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A cultural shift within the scientific community is necessary to broaden the definition of scientific value and reward systems.
“Broadening the definition of scientific value and the reward systems will require a cultural shift within the scientific community (Uriarte et al. 2007;Goring et al. 2014)”
From Creating and maintaining high‐performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills (2014) · cites this paper as Uriarte et al. 2007
Cites
Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067 · Cited by 3,186 · see citing works
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry
Longino, H. E. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9780691209753 · Cited by 3,092 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cheruvelil, K. S., Soranno, P. A., Weathers, K. C., Hanson, P. C., Goring, S. J., Filstrup, C. T., & Read, E. K. (2014) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/130001 · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Uriarte, M., Ewing, H. A., Eviner, V. T., & Weathers, K. C.
- Affiliations
- Bates College (US)
- Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (US)
- Venue
- BioScience
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-01-01
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71-78
- ISSN
- 0006-3568 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-3244
- OpenAlex
- W1987220420
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 4.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BioScience (publishedVersion)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Wisconsin-Madison
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Science and Science Education
- Keywords
- scientific culture, diversity in science, research evaluation, reward structure, public engagement with science, interdisciplinary collaboration, social impact of research, research agenda setting, institutional change
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