"Scientific Collaboration: Do Two Heads Need to Be More Than Twice Better Than One?"

Abstract : Epistemic accounts of scientific collaboration usually assume that, one way or another, two heads really are more than twice better than one. We show that this hypothesis is unduly strong.We present a deliberately crudemodel with unfavorable hypotheses.We show that, even then, when the priority rule is applied, large differences in successfulness can emerge from small differences in efficiency, with sometimes increasing marginal returns. We emphasize that success is sensitive to the structure of competing communities. Our results suggest that purely epistemic explanations of the efficiency of collaborations are less plausible but have much more powerful socioepistemic versions.
Type de document :
Article dans une revue
Philosophy of Science, University of Chicago Press, 2015, 82 (4), pp.667-688. 〈10.1086/682940〉
Liste complète des métadonnées

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01230736
Contributeur : Cyrille Imbert <>
Soumis le : mercredi 18 novembre 2015 - 21:56:13
Dernière modification le : mardi 3 juillet 2018 - 11:27:44

Lien texte intégral

Identifiants

Citation

Cyrille Imbert, Thomas Boyer-Kassem. "Scientific Collaboration: Do Two Heads Need to Be More Than Twice Better Than One?". Philosophy of Science, University of Chicago Press, 2015, 82 (4), pp.667-688. 〈10.1086/682940〉. 〈halshs-01230736〉

Partager

Métriques

Consultations de la notice

151