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

Synthese 191 (1):17-35 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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
Reprint years
2014
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BOYIAB
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-04-24
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Heesen, Remco & Bright, Liam Kofi

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2013-01-15

Total views
126 ( #22,264 of 41,626 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #35,521 of 41,626 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.