Almost half of academics say they have been deliberately prevented from accessing research resources or career opportunities by ¡°Gollum-like¡± rivals in their field, a new study suggests.

In a forthcoming paper examining the prevalence of the so-called Gollum effect?in academia ¨C named after the?Lord of the Rings?character known for his secretive and possessive behaviour ¨C researchers quizzed 564 researchers in the field of ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental sciences about whether they had witnessed ¡°strategic obstruction¡± from scholars keen to guard research fields for themselves.

According to the?, due to be published shortly in the journal?One Earth, some 44 per cent of respondents say they have directly experienced Gollum-like behaviour such as withholding access to a site of scientific interest, delaying access to datasets and excluding individuals from social and professional networks, as well as deliberate character assassination.

Campus resource: When am I going to be found out? Tackling academic impostor syndrome

Of those who had experienced overly possessive behaviour from fellow scientists, 57 per cent claim these actions had somewhat influenced the course of their careers, such as having to change research topic or move to a different research group. A further 12 per cent say it had entirely changed the course of their professional lives.

51³Ô¹Ï

Some 13 per cent of affected respondents say they had left academia but continued in a research-based career as a result of it while 6 per cent had left science completely, says the study, which was co-authored by Jose Valdez, based at the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research in Leipzig, Sandeep Sharma from Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg and the University of Newcastle¡¯s John Gould.

Denying access to specimens or research locations is cited by some respondents as an example of obstructive behaviour, the paper explains. ¡°Some researchers won¡¯t give you access to the museum to examine specimens¡­In the end, no one describes the species,¡± one researcher is quoted as saying.

51³Ô¹Ï

Another said a senior researcher had ¡°¡®staked her claim¡¯ on [a] species and does not want me to continue working on it¡±, while another spoke about a researcher who had blocked access to important datasets, specimens and lab equipment, stating she had ¡°¡®reserved¡¯ important research avenues¡­and is actively withholding data from our entire research group in order to block any of us from pursuing these questions¡±.

Another claimed they had been prevented from publishing anything by a collaborator who insisted on publishing their own study first, with the work ¡°in prep for over six years now¡±.

Blaming the ¡°hyper-competitive culture that has come to define modern academia¡± for such behaviours, which included deliberately delaying the publication of rivals¡¯ work, the paper explains how ¡°to gain a competitive edge, some researchers may resort to selfish and toxic territorial behaviours, rather than collaborating or freely sharing resources they do not have ownership over¡±.

¡°Hoarding datasets and refusing reasonable data requests, deliberately obscuring or omitting descriptions of methods to hinder research reproducibility, or aggressively blocking research opportunities, resources, samples, or authorships¡± are listed as examples of ¡°strategic obstruction¡±, it continues, adding that this behaviour ¡°allows researchers to establish their monopoly, particularly those with established careers on a particular species, site, or topic to prevent competition and dictate the direction of future research¡±.

51³Ô¹Ï

Campus resource: Is the tick-box structure of promotion preventing true collaboration?

Interestingly, some 18 per cent of respondents admitted displaying some kind of Gollum-like behaviour of their own in the past, with some stating they picked up these traits from their supervisor or they were ¡°shaped by competitive environments that valued secrecy over openness and collaboration¡±.

Others said they were motivated by the fear of losing authorship credits if a rival published ahead of them, while some claimed they restricted access to datasets ¡°fearing misuse by inexperienced researchers or harm to the research ecosystem¡±.

¡°Retaliation and power struggles also played a role, with some respondents restricting access after experiencing exclusion themselves, further continuing the cycle,¡± notes the study.

The study showed Gollum-like behaviours?such as data hoarding, idea theft, and blocked access to resources are ¡°rampant¡±, Valdez told?51³Ô¹Ï, noting ¡°this phenomenon disproportionately impacts early-career researchers and marginalised groups, pushing some out of academia altogether¡±.

51³Ô¹Ï

¡°This new data underscores the critical need for systemic reforms in academia, such as open science policies and increased accountability,¡± he said.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com