
Science of Science - benbreen
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6379/eaao0185
======
dfeliej
Some of the research in this area is misleading, I'd even maybe say poorly
conducted, and I worry it will be taken too much at face value by policy-
makers and administrators.

The conclusion that institutition doesn't matter, for example, seems
ridiculous and flies in the face of a lot of IO research. People move for
reasons, for example; the question isn't whether productivity changes after a
move on average, it's what would have happened to an individual researcher if
they had stayed in a given situation relative to what would have happened
after a move to another situation. There's a lot of cliques, the moves aren't
random, etc.

It's a bit like concluding that you can determine the importance of a paper
solely by looking at the impact factor of a journal.

------
slim
this is not science of science. at most you could call it "engineering of
science". science of science is epistemology

~~~
srfilipek
> science of science is epistemology

That would be the Philosophy of Science.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science)

~~~
stillbourne
You are not wrong but he's not either. The science of science, or metascience,
is a field of epistemology, is a philosophy of science. They are all part of
the same thing.

------
ggg2
this sounds like a forced meta analysis field that could easily fall with
existing ones under work/education studies.

if you want the real deal for the title, see STS
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology_and_societ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology_and_society)

