Literature DB >> 17737466

The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.

R K Merton.   

Abstract

This account of the Matthew effect is another small exercise in the psychosociological analysis of the workings of science as a social institution. The initial problem is transformed by a shift in theoretical perspective. As originally identified, the Matthew effect was construed in terms of enhancement of the position of already eminent scientists who are given disproportionate credit in cases of collaboration or of independent multiple discoveries. Its significance was thus confined to its implications for the reward system of science. By shifting the angle of vision, we note other possible kinds of consequences, this time for the communication system of science. The Matthew effect may serve to heighten the visibility of contributions to science by scientists of acknowledged standing and to reduce the visibility of contributions by authors who are less well known. We examine the psychosocial conditions and mechanisms underlying this effect and find a correlation between the redundancy function of multiple discoveries and the focalizing function of eminent men of science-a function which is reinforced by the great value these men place upon finding basic problems and by their self-assurance. This self-assurance, which is partly inherent, partly the result of experiences and associations in creative scientific environments, and partly a result of later social validation of their position, encourages them to search out risky but important problems and to highlight the results of their inquiry. A macrosocial version of the Matthew principle is apparently involved in those processes of social selection that currently lead to the concentration of scientific resources and talent (50).

Year:  1968        PMID: 17737466     DOI: 10.1126/science.159.3810.56

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Science        ISSN: 0036-8075            Impact factor:   47.728


  6 in total

1.  The mathematical review system: does reviewer status play a role in the citation process?

Authors:  Alesia Zuccala
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2010-02-06       Impact factor: 3.238

Review 2.  A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.

Authors:  Jonathan P Tennant; Jonathan M Dugan; Daniel Graziotin; Damien C Jacques; François Waldner; Daniel Mietchen; Yehia Elkhatib; Lauren B Collister; Christina K Pikas; Tom Crick; Paola Masuzzo; Anthony Caravaggi; Devin R Berg; Kyle E Niemeyer; Tony Ross-Hellauer; Sara Mannheimer; Lillian Rigling; Daniel S Katz; Bastian Greshake Tzovaras; Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza; Nazeefa Fatima; Marta Poblet; Marios Isaakidis; Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Sébastien Renaut; Christopher R Madan; Lisa Matthias; Jesper Nørgaard Kjær; Daniel Paul O'Donnell; Cameron Neylon; Sarah Kearns; Manojkumar Selvaraju; Julien Colomb
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-07-20

3.  Are race, ethnicity, and medical school affiliation associated with NIH R01 type 1 award probability for physician investigators?

Authors:  Donna K Ginther; Laurel L Haak; Walter T Schaffer; Raynard Kington
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 6.893

4.  What makes an effective grants peer reviewer? An exploratory study of the necessary skills.

Authors:  Miriam L E Steiner Davis; Tiffani R Conner; Kate Miller-Bains; Leslie Shapard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Short-term and long-term effects of a social network intervention on friendships among university students.

Authors:  Zsófia Boda; Timon Elmer; András Vörös; Christoph Stadtfeld
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Trends in authorship in an Indian pediatric dentistry journal: relevance of matthew effect.

Authors:  Jatinder Kaur Dhillon; Gauri Kalra; Ashutosh Sharma; Vijay Prakash Mathur
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2013-12-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.