Academic superstars: competent or lucky?

Synthese 194 (11):4499-4518 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
I show that the social stratification of academic science can arise as a result of academics’ preference for reading work of high epistemic value. This is consistent with a view on which academic superstars are highly competent academics, but also with a view on which superstars arise primarily due to luck. I argue that stratification is beneficial if most superstars are competent, but not if most superstars are lucky. I also argue that it is impossible to tell whether most superstars are in fact competent or lucky, or which group a given superstar belongs to, and hence whether stratification is overall beneficial.
Reprint years
2016, 2017
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2016-10-28
Latest version: 2 (2017-11-17)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Heesen, Remco & Bright, Liam Kofi
The Scientific Ponzi Scheme.Zollman, Kevin J. S.
Medical Knowledge in a Social World: Introduction to the Special Issue.Holman, Bennett; Bernecker, Sven & Garbayo, Luciana

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
107 ( #24,440 of 41,626 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
21 ( #25,341 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.