The four norms of science as posed by Robert Merton in his article, The Normative Structure of Science are Disinterestedness, Organized Skepticism, Communism, and Universalism. These essential qualities, as he believed, serve as the basis for how scientists ought efficiently and ethically conduct their work. While each of these values have merit, certain of these norms may arguably be more crucial than others
The most paramount of Merton’s scientific norms is Organized Skepticism, which comprises the need to have research verified. The process of having one’s work replicated and tested through a peer-review procedure can help safeguard the pool of public scientific knowledge, helping to ensure a stable foundation from which future research or discoveries may build upon. As a close second, it is the concept of Communism, necessitating the sharing of scientific findings to the larger community, which feeds the aforementioned peer-review procedure. It may be true that what is not shared can more easily be lost, so by publishing one’s findings for the world to assess can allow it to be preserved, while also opening it up to new perspectives by other scientists.
Wrapping up the end of our list of norms is Disinterestedness and Universalism. Here I rank Disinterestedness, the notion that scientists ought not be in their profession merely out of self-interest, as slightly higher. In this era of AI-generable content where a person can, with increasing efficiency, create and then disseminate false information to thousands or even millions of people either for paid views or simply for malicious purposes, the motive of the author can warrant consideration. Last, Universalism tells us that a review for a scientific work should focus its content, not the author, and also that people of any level within the scientific community would be capable of making meaningful contributions. While it may be more important to base the merit of information its content, I feel the author’s credibility, their existing portfolio and any relevant previous work, should also be taken into account. A scientist with more experience may be more likely to possess a higher level of research acumen or methodology.