The reward system of science

At the end of the 1950s, Robert K. Merton formalized the idea of a reward system of science (Merton, 1957; 1973). Within the Mertonian framework, the scientific ethos is mainly comprised of four institutional norms: universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organized scepticism. Its basic precepts are derived from the scientific institution’s main objective, the “extension of certified knowledge” (1973, p. 270). According to Merton, “the institution of science has developed an elaborate system for allocating rewards to those who variously live up to its norms” (1957, p. 642) as they strive to participate in this institutional objective. The notion of recognition can be broadly defined as “the giving of symbolic and material rewards” (Merton, 1973, p. 429) by scientific peers; it is attributed to researchers who contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge through their original work. Recognition therefore lies at the foundation of this reward system and constitutes, in the Mertonian view, both a driving force behind researchers’ actions and the pillar upon which scientific careers are—or at least can be—built

The reward system of science

At the end of the 1950s, Robert K. Merton formalized the idea of a reward system of science (Merton, 1957; 1973). Within the Mertonian framework, the scientific ethos is mainly comprised of four institutional norms: universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organized scepticism. Its basic precepts are derived from the scientific institution’s main objective, the “extension of certified knowledge” (1973, p. 270). According to Merton, “the institution of science has developed an elaborate system for allocating rewards to those who variously live up to its norms” (1957, p. 642) as they strive to participate in this institutional objective. The notion of recognition can be broadly defined as “the giving of symbolic and material rewards” (Merton, 1973, p. 429) by scientific peers; it is attributed to researchers who contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge through their original work. Recognition therefore lies at the foundation of this reward system and constitutes, in the Mertonian view, both a driving force behind researchers’ actions and the pillar upon which scientific careers are—or at least can be—built

The reward system of science

At the end of the 1950s, Robert K. Merton formalized the idea of a reward system of science (Merton, 1957; 1973). Within the Mertonian framework, the scientific ethos is mainly comprised of four institutional norms: universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organized scepticism. Its basic precepts are derived from the scientific institution’s main objective, the “extension of certified knowledge” (1973, p. 270). According to Merton, “the institution of science has developed an elaborate system for allocating rewards to those who variously live up to its norms” (1957, p. 642) as they strive to participate in this institutional objective. The notion of recognition can be broadly defined as “the giving of symbolic and material rewards” (Merton, 1973, p. 429) by scientific peers; it is attributed to researchers who contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge through their original work. Recognition therefore lies at the foundation of this reward system and constitutes, in the Mertonian view, both a driving force behind researchers’ actions and the pillar upon which scientific careers are—or at least can be—built

Number of papers indexed in WoS (all and with funding acknowledgments) and percentage of papers with funding acknowledgments, by discipline (2015).

<p>Number of papers indexed in WoS (all and with funding acknowledgments) and percentage of papers with funding acknowledgments, by discipline (2015).</p

Bidimensional Correspondence Analysis for acknowledgments patterns by discipline (plane 3–4).

<p>Bidimensional Correspondence Analysis for acknowledgments patterns by discipline (plane 3–4).</p

Explained and cumulative variance for each axis.

<p>Explained and cumulative variance for each axis.</p

Aggregate data for the forthcoming PLOS ONE article "Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences" DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185578

Aggregate data for the PLOS ONE article "Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences." DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185578<div><div><br></div><div>Table 1. Explained and cumulative variance for each axis</div><div><br></div><div>Table 2. Relative contributions of the factor to the element for disciplines (expressed as a percentage)</div><div><br></div><div>Table 3. Number of papers indexed in WoS (all and with funding acknowledgements) and percentage of papers with funding acknowledgements, by discipline (2015)</div><div><br></div><div>For the purposes of the analysis presented in Fig 1 and 2, the dataset was partitioned by discipline and a Correspondence Analysis was applied to these subsets and using a MATLAB program.</div><div>Fig 1. Bidimensional Correspondence Analysis for acknowledgements patterns by discipline (plane 1-2)</div><div><br></div><div>Fig 2. Bidimensional Correspondence Analysis for acknowledgements patterns by discipline (plane 3-4).</div><div><br></div><div><p>Supporting Information:</p><p>S1 Fig. Frequency distribution of noun phrases found in acknowledgements</p></div><div><p>S1 Table. Frequency of the 214 most frequent noun phrases, by discipline</p><p>S2 Table. Quality of representation of the rows (cumulative contribution for each NP)</p><p>S3 Table. Quality of representation of the columns (cumulative contribution for each discipline)</p></div></div

Relative contributions of the factor to the element for disciplines (expressed as a percentage).

<p>Relative contributions of the factor to the element for disciplines (expressed as a percentage).</p