Is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush? Or, whether scientists should publish intermediate results

Abstract

A part of the scientific literature consists of intermediate results within longer project. Scientists often publish first result in the course of their work, while aware that they should soon achieve more advanced result from this preliminary result. Should they follow the proverb a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and publish any intermediate result they get? This is the normative question addressed in this paper. My aim is to clarify, to refine, and to assess informal arguments about the choice whether to publish intermediate results. To this end, I adopt rational decision framework, supposing some utility or preferences, and I propose formal model. The best publishing strategy turns out to depend on the research situation. In some simple circumstances, even selfish and short-minded scientists should publish their intermediate results, and should thus behave like their altruistic peers, i. e. like society would like them to behave. In other research situations, with inhomogeneous reward or difficulty profiles, the best strategy is opposite. These results suggest qualified philosophical morals.