Scientific status of disciplines, individuals, and ideas: Empirical analyses of the potential impact of theory

Review of General Psychology

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 98-112

  Simonton, Dean Keith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Disciplines; Impact; Research; Science; Theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746210924     PISSN: 10892680     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.98     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Annin, E. L., Boring, E. G., & Watson, R. I. (1968). Important psychologists, 1600-1967. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 4, 303-315.
2. Ashar, H., & Shapiro, J. Z. (1990). Are retrenchment decisions rational? The role of information in times of budgetary stress. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 123-141.
3. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
4. Berlyne, D. E. (Ed.). (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
5. Best, L. A., Smith, L. D., & Stubbs, D. A. (2001). Graph use in psychology and other sciences. Behavioral Processes, 54, 155-165.
6. Cleveland, W. S. (1984). Graphs in scientific publications. American Statistician, 38, 261-269.
7. Coan, R. W. (1968). Dimensions of psychological theory. American Psychologist, 23, 715-722.
8. Coan, R. W. (1979). Psychologists: Personal and theoretical pathways. New York: Irvington Publishers.
9. Coan, R. W., & Zagona, S. V. (1962). Contemporary ratings of psychological theorists. Psychological Record, 12, 315-322.
10. Cole, S. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89, 111-139.
11. Comte, A. (1855). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte (H. Martineau, Trans.). New York: Blanchard. (Original work published 1839-1842)
12. Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30, 699-714.
13. Feist, G. J. (1997). Quantity, quality, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important? Creativity Research Journal, 10, 325-335.
14. Garfield, E. (1987). Mapping the world of science: Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? In D. N. Jackson & J. P. Rushton (Eds.), Scientific excellence: Origins and assessment (pp. 98-128). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15. Garvey, W. D., & Tomita, K. (1972). Continuity of productivity by scientists in the years 1968-1971. Science Studies, 2, 379-383.
16. Gentner, D., & Jeziorski, M. (1989). Historical shifts in the use of analogy in science. In B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish, Jr., R. A. Neimeyer, & A. C. Houts (Eds.), The psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 296-325). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Gholson, B., & Barker, P. (1985). Kuhn, Lakatos, and Laudan: Applications to the history of physics and psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 755-769.
18. Gruber, H. E. (1989). Networks of enterprise in creative scientific work. In B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish, Jr., R. A. Neimeyer, & A. C. Houts (Eds.), The psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 246-265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Hagstrom, W. O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39, 1-18.
20. Hargens, L. L. (1978). Relations between work habits, research technologies, and eminence in science. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 5, 97-112.
21. Hedges, L. V. (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science? American Psychologist, 42, 443-455.
22. Heyduk, R. G., & Fenigstein, A. (1984). Influential works and authors in psychology: A survey of eminent psychologists. American Psychologist, 39, 556-559.
23. Kimble, G. A. (1984). Psychology's two cultures. American Psychologist, 39, 833-839.
24. Kühn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programs. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27. McDowell, J. M. (1982). Obsolescence of knowledge and career publication profiles: Some evidence of differences among fields in costs of interrupted careers. American Economic Review, 72, 752-768.
28. Meehl, P. E. (1992). Cliometric metatheory: The actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71, 339-467.
29. Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Tweney, R. D. (1978). Consequences of confirmation and discontinuation in a simulated research environment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 395-406.
30. Nobel Prize (n.d.). Accessed from http://www.nobel.se.
31. Price, D. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510-515.
32. Redner, S. (1998). How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. European Physical Journal B, 4, 131-134.
33. Roeckelein, J. E. (1996). Citation of laws and theories in textbooks across 112 years of psychology. Psychological Reports, 79, 979-998.
34. Roeckelein, J. E. (1997). Psychology among the sciences: Comparisons of numbers of theories and laws cited in textbooks. Psychological Reports, 80, 131-141.
35. Root-Bernstein, R. S., Bernstein, M., & Gamier, H. (1993). Identification of scientists making long-term, high-impact contributions, with notes on their methods of working. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 329-343.
36. Rosenthal, R. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology? American Psychologist, 45, 775-777.
37. Rushton, J. P. (1984). Evaluating research eminence in psychology: The construct validity of citation counts. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 37, 33-36.
38. Schachter, S., Christenfeld, N., Ravina, B., & Bilous, F. (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 362-367.
39. Shadish, W. R., Jr. (1989). The perception and evaluation of quality in science. In B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish, Jr., R. A. Neimeyer, & A. C. Houts (Eds.), The psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 383-426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Simon, R. J. (1974). The work habits of eminent scientists. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 1, 327-335.
41. Simonton, D. K. (1976). Philosophical eminence, beliefs, and Zeitgeist An individual-generational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 630-640.
42. Simonton, D. K. (1992). Leaders of American psychology, 1879-1967: Career development, creative output, and professional achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 5-17.
43. Simonton, D. K. (2000). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term disciplinary impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4, 1-13.
44. Simonton, D. K. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into psychology's history. Washington, DC: APA Books.
45. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Psychology's status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology, 8, 59-67.
46. Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Archibald, A. B., & Roberson-Nay, R. (2002). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. American Psychologist, 57, 749-761.
47. Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Johnston, J., & Archibald, A. B. (2000). Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences. Social Studies of Science, 30, 73-94.
48. Snow, C. P. (1960). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1993). Age and the Nobel Prize revisited. Scientometrics, 28, 387-399.
50. Sternberg, R. J., & Gordeeva, T. (1996). The anatomy of impact: What makes an article influential? Psychological Science, 7, 69-75.
51. Suls, J., & Reicher, B. (1983). Social comparison in the social and physical sciences: An archival study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 575-580.
52. Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C., & Gist, M. E. (1984). Type A behavior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 402-418.
53. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54. Watson, R. I., Sr. (1974). Eminent contributors to psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Springer.
55. Wolff, W. M. (1970). A study of criteria for journal manuscripts. American Psychologist, 25, 636-639.
56. Wolff, W. M. (1973). Publication problems in psychology and an explicit evaluation schema for manuscripts. American Psychologists, 28, 257-639.
57. Zusne, L., & Dailey, D. P. (1982). History of psychology texts as measuring instruments of eminence in psychology. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 3, 7-42.