Can scientific impact be judged prospectively? A bibliometric test of Simonton"s model of creative productivity

Abstract

Simonton"s (1997) model of creative productivity, based on a blind variation-selection process, predicts scientific impact can only be evaluated retrospectively, after recognition has been achieved. We test this hypothesis using bibliometric data from the Human Factors journal, which gives an award for the best paper published each year. If Simonton"s model is correct, award winning papers would not be cited much more frequently than non-award winning papers, showing that scientific success cannot be judged prospectively. The results generally confirm Simonton"s model. Receipt of the award increases the citation rate of articles, but accounts for only 0.8% to 1.2% of the variance in the citation rate. Consistent with Simonton"s model, the influence of the award on citation rate may reflect a selection process of an elite group of reviewers who are representative of the larger peer group that eventually determines the citation rate of the article. Consistent with Simonton"s model, author productivity accounts for far more variance in the authors" total citation rate (58.9%) and in the citation rate of the authors" most cited article (12.6%) than does award receipt.