References
- American Sociological Association. (2011). The pure sociology network. Footnotes, 39(6), 18.
- Anele, D. (2011). Priority disputes in science in the context of conflicting norms: The case of Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz revisited. Philosophy Study, 1(5), 311–326.
- Black, D. (1976). The behavior of law. Academic Press.
- Black, D. (1979). A strategy of pure sociology. In S. McNall (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives in sociology (pp. 149–168). St. Martin’s Press.
- Black, D. (1995). The epistemology of pure sociology. Law and Social Inquiry, 20(3), 829–870. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1995.tb00693.x
- Black, D. (2000). Dreams of pure sociology. Sociological Theory, 18(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00105
- Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Routledge.
- Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research of the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.
- Bucchi, M. (2015). Norms, competition and visibility in contemporary science: The legacy of Robert K. Merton. Journal of Classical Sociology, 15(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X14558766
- Campbell, B. (2015). The geometry of genocide. University of Virginia Press.
- Crane, D. (1967). The gate-keepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist, 2(4), 195–201.
- Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. University of Chicago Press.
- Dale, S. (2015). Heuristics and biases: The science of decision-making. Business Information Review, 32(2), 93–99. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382115592536
- Demark-Wahnefried, W., Bowen, D., Jabson, J., & Paskett, E. (2011). Scientific bias arising from sampling, selective recruitment, and attrition. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 20(3), 415–418. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1169
- Drenth, P. (2006). Responsible conduct in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0003-1
- Durkheim, E. (1915). The elementary forms of religious life. The Free Press. ( Original work published 1965)
- Dushkind, D. (1953). Physical, psychological, cultural and social forces affecting sociological research. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 27(2), 80–90.
- Eberhardt, J. (2019). Biased: Uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do. Viking.
- Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Ioannidis, J. (2017). Meta-assessment of bias in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(14), 3714–3719. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618569114
- Franklin, A. (2008). Is failure an option? Contingency and refutation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 39(2), 242–252. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.03.016
- Fuchs, S., & Westervelt, S. (1996). Fraud and trust in science. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 39(2), 248–269. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1996.0043
- Fugelsang, J., Stein, C., Green, A., & Dunbar, K. (2004). Theory and data interactions of the scientific mind: Evidence from the molecular and the cognitive laboratory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 86–95. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085799
- Goldenring, J. (2010). Innocence and due diligence: Managing unfounded allegations of scientific misconduct. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 527–530. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd4c7a
- Haeussler, C., Jiang, L., Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2014). Specific and general information sharing among competing academic researchers. Research Policy, 43(3), 465–475. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.017
- Haselton, M., Nettle, D., & Andrews, P. (2005). The evolution of cognitive bias. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 724–746). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
- Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4
- Henriques, G., Michalski, J., Quackenbush, S., & Schmidt, W. (2019). The tree of knowledge system: A new metatheoretical map for big history. Journal of Big History, 3(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v3i4.3410
- Hesselmann, F., Graf, V., Schmidt, M., & Reinhart, M. (2017). The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology Review, 65(6), 814–845. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116663807
- Hicks, E. P., & Kluemper, G. T. (2011). Heuristic reasoning and cognitive biases: Are they hindrances to judgments and decision making in orthodontics? American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 139(3), 297–304. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.05.018
- Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., & Perhoniemi, R. (2006). Perceived discrimination and well-being: A victim study of different immigrant groups. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16(4), 267–284. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.865
- Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392
- Krimsky, S. (2013). Do financial conflicts of interest bias research? An inquiry into the “funding effect” hypothesis. Technology & Human Values, 38(4), 566–587. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243912456271
- Krishnan, V. (2013). Etiquette in scientific publishing. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 144(4), 577–582. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.05.008
- Leahey, E., & Cain, C. (2013). Straight from the source: Accounting for academic success. Social Studies of Science, 43(6), 927–951. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713484820
- Li, E., Liao, C., & Yen, H. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515–1530. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.012
- Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. University of Cambridge Press.
- Majersik, J. (2019). Ethics and bias in clinical trial enrollment in stroke. Current Cardiology Reports, 21(49), 1–7. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1139-3
- McIntyre, L. (2019). The scientific attitude: Defending science from denial, fraud, and pseudoscience. The MIT Press.
- Mellican, R. (1992). From fusion frenzy to fraud: Reflections on science and its cultural norms. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 12(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/027046769201200101
- Meyers, M. (2012). Prize fight: The race and the rivalry to be the first in science. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Michalski, J. (2017a). Status hierarchies and hegemonic masculinity: A general theory of prison violence. British Journal of Criminology, 57(1), 40–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv098
- Michalski, J. (2017b). Scientific partisanship: The social geometry of intellectual support. Canadian Review of Sociology, 54(2), 147–173. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12143
- Milner, M., Jr. (1994). Status and sacredness: A general theory of status relations and an analysis of Indian culture. Oxford University Press.
- Milner, M., Jr. (2015). Elites: A general model. Polity Press.
- Milner, M., Jr. (2016). Freaks, geeks, and cool kids: Teenagers in an era of consumerism, standardized tests, and social media. Routledge.
- Nelson, J. (2014). The power of gender stereotyping and confirmation bias to overwhelm accurate assessment: The case of economics, gender, and risk aversion. Journal of Economic Methodology, 21(3), 211–231. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2014.939691
- Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
- Nurunnabi, M., & Hossain, A. (2019). Data falsification and question on academic integrity. Accountability in Research, 26(2), 108–122. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1564664
- Petersen, A., Fortunato, S., Pan, R., Kaski, K., Penner, O., Rungia, A., Riccabonic, M., Stanley, H., & Pammolli, F. (2014). Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 111(43), 15316–15321. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323111111
- Petersen, A., Jung, W., Yang, J., & Stanley, H. (2011). Quantitative and empirical demonstration of the Matthew effect in a study of career longevity. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 108(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016733108
- Pitts-Taylor, V. (2014). Cautionary notes on navigating the neurocognitive turn. Sociological Forum, 29(4), 995–1000. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12132
- Polek, E., Wöhrle, J., & Van Oudenhoven, J. (2010). The role of attachment styles, perceived discrimination, and cultural distance in adjustment of German and Eastern European immigrants in the Netherlands. Cross-Cultural Research, 44(1), 60–88. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397109352779
- Purtill, R. (1970). The purpose of science. Philosophy of Science, 37(2), 301–306. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/288303
- Schoenwolf, G. (2013). Getting published well requires fulfilling editors’ and reviewers’ needs and desires. Development, Growth and Differentiation, 55(9), 735–743. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/dgd.12092
- Shapin, S. (1994). A social history of truth. University of Chicago Press.
- Šimundić, A. (2013). Bias in research. Biochemia Medica, 23(1), 12–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.003
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
- West, R., Meserve, J., & Stanovich, K. (2012). Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 506–519. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028857
- White, H. (2011). Scientific and scholarly networks. In J. Scott & P. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 271–285). Sage.
- Yeo, S., Xenos, M., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. (2015). Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 172–191. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214557782
- Zuckerman, H. (1978). The sociology of the Nobel Prize: Further notes and queries. American Scientist, 66(4), 420–425. http://www.jstor.com/stable/27848749