I think it's less about universities and more about grant agencies and publications.
The last sentence of the abstract points to the broader problems in academics, of which this is a part:
"Intellectual, social, and re- source barriers all impede entry, with outsiders only entering subfields that offer a less hostile landscape for the support and acceptance of “foreign” ideas."
The issue is access. It's not enough to do research, or even write the paper, you have to publish it or get the grant, and that means the approval of peers. That often increases the quality of the publication or grant, because it has to run the gauntlet of criticism, but it also means that if peers don't understand something or aren't open to it, it dies before it sees the light of day. It's sort of like "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound"? If research is conducted, but isn't allowed to appear in a peer-reviewed journal, did it happen?
What's really necessary in academics is something closer to what happens in comp sci, where people post to blogs regularly, and peer review is left for the hard work of proofs and whatnot, to force detailed scrutiny. Grants also need to be restructured dramatically, so that indirect cost requests are eliminated or minimized, and that grants are given by lottery or something for grants above a certain score, and that grant review panels are more randomized, to reduce nepotism within grant-panel agencies.
The last sentence of the abstract points to the broader problems in academics, of which this is a part:
"Intellectual, social, and re- source barriers all impede entry, with outsiders only entering subfields that offer a less hostile landscape for the support and acceptance of “foreign” ideas."
The issue is access. It's not enough to do research, or even write the paper, you have to publish it or get the grant, and that means the approval of peers. That often increases the quality of the publication or grant, because it has to run the gauntlet of criticism, but it also means that if peers don't understand something or aren't open to it, it dies before it sees the light of day. It's sort of like "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound"? If research is conducted, but isn't allowed to appear in a peer-reviewed journal, did it happen?
What's really necessary in academics is something closer to what happens in comp sci, where people post to blogs regularly, and peer review is left for the hard work of proofs and whatnot, to force detailed scrutiny. Grants also need to be restructured dramatically, so that indirect cost requests are eliminated or minimized, and that grants are given by lottery or something for grants above a certain score, and that grant review panels are more randomized, to reduce nepotism within grant-panel agencies.