I think this is exactly right: "Perhaps we’re measuring the wrong things — number of publications, number of citations, impact factors of publication outlets — as a way of measuring a scientist’s productivity, which we then reward with money, either directly or indirectly. Perhaps we should measure how many results have been replicated. Without that, we are pursuing a cacophony of claims, not cultivating a world of harmonious truths." It is not, for example, how many publications I can get for developing the nature and form of the MOOC, nor the citations to my works, nor even whether I can raise research money for it. It's whether other people can use the model successfully. The papers and the money are an aid in doing this, a means to an end, not the end in itself.