From DeepThink (R1), 20250215:
The argument that a significant portion of published research lacks substantial value has been made by various scholars, scientists, and critics of the current academic publishing system. Here are some key voices and perspectives on this issue:
1. **John Ioannidis**
- **Argument**: Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford University, is well-known for his 2005 paper *"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False."* He argues that many studies, particularly in fields like medicine and social sciences, suffer from small sample sizes, poor methodology, and publication bias (the tendency to publish only positive or statistically significant results).
- **Impact**: His work has sparked widespread debate about the reliability and reproducibility of scientific research.
2. **Richard Horton**
- **Argument**: Horton, the editor of *The Lancet*, has criticised the academic publishing system, stating that much of the research being published is "poorly conceived, poorly conducted, and poorly reported." He has called for reforms to improve the quality and integrity of scientific research.
- **Impact**: His critiques have highlighted the systemic issues within academic publishing, including the pressure to publish frequently and the lack of rigorous peer review.
3. **Daniel Sarewitz**
- **Argument**: Sarewitz, a professor of science and society at Arizona State University, has argued that the sheer volume of research being published often leads to redundant, trivial, or inconsequential studies. He suggests that the focus on quantity over quality undermines the credibility and usefulness of science.
- **Impact**: His work emphasises the need for better alignment between scientific research and societal needs.
4. **Paul Smaldino and Richard McElreath**
- **Argument**: In their 2016 paper *"The Natural Selection of Bad Science,"* Smaldino and McElreath argue that the academic system rewards practices that lead to low-quality research, such as p-hacking (manipulating data to achieve statistical significance) and selective reporting.
- **Impact**: Their work highlights how institutional incentives contribute to the proliferation of low-value research.
5. **The Replication Crisis**
- **Argument**: The replication crisis, particularly in psychology and social sciences, has revealed that many high-profile studies cannot be replicated, suggesting that their findings may be unreliable or exaggerated. Critics argue that this is a symptom of a system that prioritises novelty and impact over rigor.
- **Impact**: This crisis has led to calls for greater transparency, preregistration of studies, and open data practices.
6. **Critics of "Publish or Perish" Culture**
- **Argument**: Many academics argue that the pressure to publish frequently (the "publish or perish" culture) leads to the production of low-quality or incremental research. This culture incentivises quantity over quality, as researchers are often evaluated based on the number of publications rather than their impact or rigour.
- **Impact**: This critique has led to discussions about reforming academic evaluation systems to prioritise meaningful contributions over sheer volume.
7. **Open Science Advocates**
- **Argument**: Advocates of open science, such as those involved in initiatives like the Open Science Framework, argue that the current system encourages the publication of flashy but unreliable research. They advocate for greater transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility in research.
- **Impact**: These efforts are gradually changing how research is conducted and shared, with a focus on improving quality and trustworthiness.
Key Takeaways:
- The argument that much published research lacks value is often tied to systemic issues in academia, such as publication bias, poor incentives, and the pressure to produce frequent results.
- Critics like Ioannidis, Horton, and others have called for reforms to improve research quality, reproducibility, and relevance.
- While not all research is without value, the sheer volume of publications and the flaws in the system mean that a significant portion may not contribute meaningfully to scientific progress.
From DeepThink (R1), 2025022:
Quantifying the exact relative income values from humanities research versus scientific research in US dollars is challenging due to the variability in funding sources, institutional priorities, and regional differences. However, we can provide a general comparison based on available data and trends:
1. Scientific Research Income
- **External Funding**: Scientific research, particularly in fields like biomedical sciences, engineering, and physical sciences, often attracts substantial external funding. For example:
- **National Institutes of Health (NIH)**: In the United States, the NIH alone disbursed approximately $42 billion in research grants in 2020.
- **National Science Foundation (NSF)**: The NSF awarded around $8.3 billion in research funding in 2020.
- **Private Industry**: Pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and other industries invest billions annually in university research partnerships. For instance, a single large pharmaceutical company might invest hundreds of millions in R&D collaborations with universities.
- **Commercialization**: Universities earn significant income from patents, licensing, and spin-off companies. For example:
- **Stanford University**: Known for its tech innovations, Stanford earned over $114 million from licensing income in 2019.
- **MIT**: MIT reported $167 million in licensing revenue in 2019.
2. Humanities Research Income
- **External Funding**: Humanities research typically receives much less external funding compared to scientific research. For example:
- **National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)**: In 2020, the NEH awarded approximately $120 million in grants, a fraction of what scientific fields receive.
- **Private Foundations and Philanthropy**: Humanities research often relies on smaller grants from private foundations, cultural organisations, and philanthropic donations, which can range from a few thousand to several million dollars per project.
- **Institutional Support**: Universities often provide internal funding for humanities research, but these amounts are generally modest compared to scientific research budgets. For example:
- **Internal Grants**: A university might allocate a few million dollars annually for humanities research across various departments.
3. Comparative Analysis
- **Scientific Research**: The income generated from scientific research can range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for large research universities. For instance:
- **Top Research Universities**: Institutions like Harvard, MIT, and Stanford can generate hundreds of millions annually from scientific research funding and commercialisation.
- **Humanities Research**: The income from humanities research is significantly lower, often in the range of a few million dollars annually for even the most well-funded humanities programs. For example:
- **Humanities Grants**: A top-tier university might receive a few million dollars in external humanities grants annually, with additional internal funding bringing the total to perhaps $10-20 million.
4. Global Perspective
- **Scientific Research**: Globally, countries with strong scientific research programs (e.g., the United States, Germany, China, Japan) invest billions annually in scientific research. For example:
- **China**: China’s investment in R&D reached over $400 billion in 2020, with a significant portion going to universities and research institutions.
- **European Union**: The EU’s Horizon 2020 program allocated around €80 billion ($95 billion) for research and innovation from 2014 to 2020.
- **Humanities Research**: Global funding for humanities research is much lower. For example:
- **European Research Council (ERC)**: The ERC allocated approximately €1.9 billion ($2.2 billion) to humanities and social sciences from 2014 to 2020, a small fraction of the total research budget.
Conclusion
While precise figures vary, scientific research typically generates income in the range of hundreds of millions to billions of dollars annually for leading universities, driven by substantial external funding and commercialisation opportunities. In contrast, humanities research generates significantly less income, often in the range of a few million to tens of millions of dollars annually, relying more on smaller grants and institutional support. This disparity highlights the different economic landscapes and funding priorities for these two broad areas of academic research.
Note: links
The core motivation of initiating the project, Crits…online, was to revive the now somewhat nostalgic notion that design students, across the world, should be able to access sufficient personal crits, reviews (or whatever they are known as in your place of study), no matter their financial position, or perceived ability.
The global tertiary design education paradigm has tilted away from the idea that anyone who has shown ability and determination will, with the substantial assistance of the State, be entitled to an education that with time will benefit the larger populace… to one where if you can’t afford it, best you find the cash, and likely enslave yourself to many years of marginal income and toil to pay off an enormous debt.
The outrageous and immoral decision to place academic research behind paywalls
As a result, teaching staff are pressured to prioritise research over teaching, spending less time educating students and more time publishing papers—often locked behind paywalls. To address this shifting requirement, universities now have to favour purely academic staff over ‘pracademic’ staff, contrary to what was previously the norm in design tuition; it is also true that many universities are reducing or, indeed, closing humanities departments - science trumps humanities in research earning
Noticeably, this new paradigm creates a cycle where students face rising costs, leaving them burdened with significant debt for much of their early working lives. Meanwhile, the quality of design education suffers, and graduates enter the workforce with both financial strain and potentially less practical preparation.
The companies and organisations listed below believe in our mission, are helping us to address this suffocating problem, and we are proud to be associated with them!
To access sponsor funding/placement, or to find out more about sponsors, you need to be signed in as a member (please signup here
To sponsor a designer, be it with session time or internship/employment, please click here
From DeepThink (R1), 20250215:
The concept of putting research papers behind paywalls evolved over time as academic publishing became commercialised. Here's a brief overview of how this system developed:
1. **Early Academic Publishing**: In the early days, academic journals were often published by scholarly societies or universities, with costs covered by subscriptions or institutional support. Access was limited but not necessarily profit-driven.
2. **Rise of Commercial Publishers**: In the mid-20th century, commercial publishers like Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley began acquiring academic journals. They saw an opportunity to monetize the distribution of research by charging subscription fees to libraries and institutions.
3. **Profit-Driven Model**: These publishers realized that academic research, often funded by public money, was essential for scientists and institutions. They capitalized on this by creating a paywall system, where access to journals required costly subscriptions.
4. **Digital Era**: With the advent of the internet, publishers transitioned to digital formats but maintained paywalls, often increasing prices. This led to widespread criticism, as taxpayers and researchers who produced the work were denied access unless they or their institutions paid.
5. **Open Access Movement**: In response, the open access movement emerged, advocating for free and unrestricted access to research. Initiatives like arXiv, PLOS, and institutional repositories have challenged the paywall model.
While no single person is credited with inventing the paywall system, it is largely a product of the commercialization of academic publishing by large corporations. Critics argue that this model prioritizes profit over the dissemination of knowledge.
From DeepThink (R1), 20250215:
Robert Maxwell, a controversial media mogul, played a significant role in the commercialisation of academic publishing and the expansion of the paywall model. In the mid-20th century, Maxwell acquired Pergamon Press, a scientific publishing company, and aggressively expanded its portfolio of academic journals. Here's how he contributed to the current system:
1. **Commercialisation of Academic Publishing**: Maxwell saw the potential for profit in academic publishing and transformed Pergamon Press into a highly profitable business. He increased the number of journals and raised subscription prices, setting a precedent for other commercial publishers.
2. **Bundling and Price Inflation**: Maxwell pioneered the practice of bundling journals, forcing libraries to subscribe to large packages of journals, often at inflated prices. This made it difficult for institutions to opt out of expensive subscriptions, even if they only needed a few journals.
3. **Global Expansion**: Maxwell aggressively marketed Pergamon's journals internationally, particularly in the scientific and medical fields. This global reach helped establish the dominance of commercial publishers in academic publishing.
4. **Influence on Competitors**: Maxwell's success with Pergamon Press inspired other publishers, such as Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley, to adopt similar profit-driven models. This led to the consolidation of the academic publishing industry and the widespread use of paywalls.
5. **Criticism and Legacy**: While Maxwell's strategies were financially successful, they were also heavily criticised for prioritising profit over the accessibility of knowledge. His practices contributed to the current system, where much of the world's research is locked behind expensive paywalls, despite being funded by public money.
Maxwell's role in academic publishing is a key part of the history of how research became commodified. His legacy continues to influence debates about open access and the ethics of academic publishing.
List of Sponsors
2024.12.02
dhk architects
