Economics as an objective science is what makes economics most useful for society, and economics very often is, in fact, an objective science, from which society has greatly benefited. That being said, the incentive system within the economics profession, along with the varied interests that economists have had to study the field, has sometimes created a rather different situation. Contributions to scholarly, economic literature, in particular, could be more reflective of an intellectual game of amusement than a genuine pursuit of useful, scientific knowledge. This is especially the case when the game being played is to score the most publications in high-ranking journals or to accumulate the most citations to one’s work, to enable an economist (especially an academic economist) to advance in their career, to receive recognition and praise from their colleagues, to acquire research funding, and to improve the reputation of their institutions. This problem has become so pervasive within the profession that some economists, and many students of economics, have difficulty in understanding that there could be an important distinction between recognized contributions to literature and genuine advancements of useful knowledge. This paper will explain how that distinction can be made, in reference to studies that have been done on this topic. The more economists can understand this distinction, the more they will be devoted to advancing useful knowledge as opposed to competing in an intellectual game of amusement scored by publication and citation counts.