5 ms·

This is not at all obvious, would you care to expand ?

• chris_wot 11y ago
  The entire editorial is premised on the fact that some "parasites" shouldn't have access to scrutinise data because the market incentives are reduced.
  • stevetrewick 11y ago
    What market ? Markets balance supply and demand via prices or some analogue thereof. I thoroughly and enthusiastically agree that incentives are the basic problem but incentives != markets.
    • chris_wot 11y ago
      The "price" is reputation, and your name on a paper. It's a market of influence and prestige!
      • stevetrewick 11y ago
        And that balances supply and demand how ? I understand where you're coming from, but 'influence and prestige'- unless they are traded - are not market goods. To preempt, competition based on status signals also != markets. Though what the NEMJ authors seem to desire is more akin to a market - I'll trade you this data for the prestige of a co authorship - this is not 'markets broke science', this is 'scientists believe an explicit market structure will maximise their utility'. These seem to me to be radically different statements, though this may be a matter of perspective.