La pseudo-originalità scientifica: cause e tratti caratteristici

So frequent is pseudo-originality in science and the humanities, that the adage "old wine in new bottles" has become common in the scholarly literature of numerous disciplines to stigmatize studies that repeat, through a novel terminology, things that were already known. But while many have lamented this phenomenon, there is a dearth of systematic studies on it. By relying on the literature of meta-science as well as on the literature of a variety of disciplines (ranging from political science to sociology, to management studies, economics, psychology, and other fields), this article provides a systematic analysis of pseudo-originalities. The paper begins with a number of simple rules of thumbs to identify pseudo-originality (e.g., pseudo-originality should be based on ample textual evidence, not on isolated passages; it should not be confused with theory synthesis or with attaining greater technical precision). Then, a large section is devoted to the causes of pseudo-originality in science: from generational conflicts among scientists to academic fads and fashions, from the quest for novelty of academic journals to the growing burden of knowledge, which makes it increasingly difficult for scholars to keep abreast of the relevant literature. Finally, the paper highlights an array of bad citing practices that can lead to pseudo-originality (omitting the relevant literature, or citing the literature succinctly, distorting a source's content etc.). Taken together, these arguments cast light on a largely neglected problem that plagues scientific research in many fields.