Abstract
The fame or status of an academic might not be built exclusively on research merit alone. In a world of competitive publishing, where vanity, metrics and citations play key roles in academics’ survival, for better or for worse, journal or institutional prestige may also serve as catalysts to further promote their status. The Matthew Effect, which breeds success from success, may rely on standing on the shoulders of others, citation bias, or the efforts of a collaborative network. Prestige is driven by resource, which in turn feeds prestige, amplifying advantage and rewards, and ultimately skewing recognition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Azoulay, P., Stuart, T., & Wang, Y.-B. (2014). Matthew: Effect or fable? Management Science, 60(1), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1755.
Baldock, C., Schreiner, L. J., & Orton, C. G. (2017). Famous medical physicists often get more credit for discoveries due to their fame than less prominent scientists who may have contributed as much or earlier to these developments. Medical Physics, 44(4), 1209–1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12089.
Beel, J., Gipp, B., & Wilde, E. (2010). Academic search engine optimization (ASEO) optimizing scholarly literature for Google Scholar & Co. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 41(2), 176–190.
Bol, T., de Vaan, M., & van de Rijt, A. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 115(19), 4887–4890. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719557115.
Bonitz, M., Bruckner, E., & Scharnhorst, A. (1997). Characteristics and impact of the Matthew effect for countries. Scientometrics, 40(3), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459289.
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
Callaham, M., Wears, R. L., & Weber, E. (2002). Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA, 287(21), 2847–2850. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2847.
Capraro, V., & Perc, M. (2018). Grand challenges in social physics: In pursuit of moral behavior. Frontiers in Physics, 6, 107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2018.00107.
Chan, H. F., Mixon, F. G., & Torgler, B. (2019). Fame in the sciences: A culturomics approach. Scientometrics, 118(2), 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2975-4.
Chen, K.-H., & Guan, J.-C. (2011). Mapping the innovation production process from accumulative advantage to economic outcomes: A path modeling approach. Technovation, 31(7), 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.03.004.
Drivas, K., & Kremmydas, D. (2020). The Matthew effect of a journal’s ranking. Research Policy, 49(1), 103951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103951.
Goldstone, J. A. (1979). A deductive explanation of the Matthew effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 9(3), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277900900306.
Ioannidis, J., Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2018). Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days. Nature, 561(7722), 167–169. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06185-8.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35(5), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684.
Knottnerus, J. A., & Tugwell, P. (2014). Selection-related bias, an ongoing concern in doing and publishing research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(10), 1057–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.003.
Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). The impact factor’s Matthew effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 424–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21232.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56.
Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1086/354848.
Morgan, A. C., Economou, D. J., Way, S. F., & Clauset, A. (2018). Prestige drives epistemic inequality in the diffusion of scientific ideas. EPJ Data Science, 7, 40. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0166-4.
Niles, M. T., Schimanski, L. A., McKiernan, E. C., & Alperin, J. P. (2020). Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations. PLoS ONE, 15(3), e0228914. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228914.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2018). How to avoid borrowed plumes in academia. Research Policy, 49(1), 103831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103831.
Paris, G., De Leo, G., Menozzi, P., & Gatto, M. (1998). Region-based citation bias in science. Nature, 396, 210. https://doi.org/10.1038/24249.
Perc, M. (2014). The Matthew effect in empirical data. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 11(98), 20140378. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0378.
Petersen, A. M., Jung, W. S., Yang, J. S., & Stanley, H. E. (2011). Quantitative and empirical demonstration of the Matthew effect in a study of career longevity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 108(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016733108.
Reingewertz, Y., & Lutmar, C. (2018). Academic in-group bias: An empirical examination of the link between author and journal affiliation. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.11.006.
Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023002004.
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-204.
Stephan, P. E. (2004). Robert K. Merton’s perspective on priority and the provision of the public good knowledge. Scientometrics, 60(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000027311.17226.70.
Strevens, M. (2006). The role of the Matthew effect in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.07.009.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2020). Correcting for gamed or distorted metrics: A comment on “Citation metrics for appraising scientists: misuse, gaming and proper use.” The Medical Journal of Australia, 213(5), 237-237.e1. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50738.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Bernès, S. (2018). Clarivate Analytics: Continued omnia vanitas impact factor culture. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(1), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9873-7.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2017). Highly cited retracted papers. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1653–1661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2227-4.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Dobránszki, J., Tsigaris, P., & Al-Khatib, A. (2019). Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(6), 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071.
Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W. D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 114(48), 12708–12713. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114.
Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.004.
Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S.-L. (1983). Matthew effects in education. American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312020003359.
Wei, Y.-Y., & Lei, L. (2018). Institution bias in the New England Journal of Medicine? A bibliometric analysis of publications (1997–2016). Scientometrics, 117(3), 1771–1775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2948-7.
Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7.
Wellmon, C., & Piper, A. (2017). Publication, power, and patronage: On inequality and academic publishing. Critical Inquiry. https://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/publication_power_and_patronage_on_inequality_and_academic_publishing/
Wilhite, A. W., & Fong, E. A. (2012). Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335(6068), 542–543. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1212540.
Zhang, Q., Abraham, J., & Fu, H. Z. (2020). Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017. Scientometrics, 125(1), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03636-w.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Kyriakos Drivas (Department of Economics, University of Piraeus, Greece) for useful comments and suggestions in an earlier draft of the manuscript, and Matjaž Perc (Faculty of Natural Sciences, and Mathematics, University of Maribor, Slovenia) for literature guidance and encouragement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The author contributed entirely to the intellectual discussion underlying this paper, literature exploration, writing, reviews and editing, and accepts responsibility for the content of this opinion piece.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest of relevance to this topic.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. The Matthew effect impacts science and academic publishing by preferentially amplifying citations, metrics and status. Scientometrics 126, 5373–5377 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03967-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03967-2