Unpacking the Matthew effect in citations

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 329-339

  Wang, Jian ^a,b,c  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ)   (Germany)

Author keywords

Appropriateness; Citation; Matthew effect; Networking; Prestige

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS;

APPROPRIATENESS; CITATION; MATTHEW EFFECTS; NETWORKING; PRESTIGE;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84893486252     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.01.006     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aizenman J., Kletzer K. The life cycle of scholars and papers in economics - The 'citation death tax'. Applied Economics 2011, 43(27):4135-4148. 10.1080/00036846.2010.485930.
2. Barabasi A.L., Albert R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 1999, 286(5439):509-512. 10.1126/science.286.5439.509.
3. Blashfield R.K. Feighner et al., invisible colleges, and the Matthew effect. Schizophrenia Bulletin 1982, 8(1):1-6.
4. Bornmann L., de Moya Anegón F., Leydesdorff L. Do scientific advancements lean on the shoulders of giants? A bibliometric investigation of the Ortega hypothesis. PLoS ONE 2010, 5(10):e13327. 10.1371/journal.pone.0013327.
5. Cole J.R., Cole S. Social stratification in science 1973, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
6. Costas R., Bordons M., van Leeuwen T.N., van Raan A.F.J. Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(4):740-753. 10.1002/asi.21017.
7. Cozzens S. What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model. Scientometrics 1989, 15(5-6):437-447. 10.1007/BF02017064.
8. Crane D. Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review 1965, 30(5):699-714. 10.2307/2091138.
9. De Bellis N. Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics 2009, Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD.
10. Gilbert G.N. Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science 1977, 7(1):113-122.
11. Gonzalez-Brambila C.N., Veloso F.M., Krackhardt D. The impact of network embeddedness on research output. Research Policy 2013, 42(9):1555-1567. 10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.008.
12. Helmreich R.L., Spence J.T., Beane W.E., Lucker G.W., Matthews K.A. Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1980, 39(5):896-908. 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.896.
13. Hicks D., Katz J.S. Equity and excellence in research funding. Minerva 2011, 49(2):137-151. 10.1007/s11024-011-9170-6.
14. Judge T.A., Cable D.M., Colbert A.E., Rynes S.L. What causes a management article to be cited-Article, author, or journal?. Academy of Management Journal 2007, 50(3):491-506. 10.5465/amj.2007.25525577.
15. Katz J.S. The self-similar science system. Research Policy 1999, 28(5):501-517. 10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00010-4.
16. Katz J.S. Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 2000, 27(1):23-36. 10.3152/147154300781782156.
17. Krapivsky P.L., Redner S., Leyvraz F. Connectivity of growing random networks. Physical Review Letters 2000, 85(21):4629-4632. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.4629.
18. Lariviere V., Gingras Y. The impact factor's Matthew effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010, 61(2):424-427. 10.1002/asi.21232.
19. Latour B., Woolgar S. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts 1986, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
20. Laudel G. The 'quality myth': Promoting and hindering conditions for acquiring research funds. Higher Education 2006, 52(3):375-403. 10.1007/s10734-004-6414-5.
21. Li E.Y., Liao C.H., Yen H.R. Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy 2013, 42(9):1515-1530. 10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.012.
22. Medoff M.H. Evidence of a Harvard and Chicago Matthew effect. Journal of Economic Methodology 2006, 13(4):485-506. 10.1080/13501780601049079.
23. Merton R.K. Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review 1957, 22(6):635-659. 10.2307/2089193.
24. Merton R.K. The Matthew effect in science. Science 1968, 159(3810):56-63. 10.2307/1723414.
25. Merton R.K. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations 1973, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
26. Merton R.K. The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis 1988, 79(299):606-623. 10.1086/354848.
27. Price D.J.D. General theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1976, 27(5-6):292-306. 10.1002/asi.4630270505.
28. Simkin M.V., Roychowdhury V.P. Stochastic modeling of citation slips. Scientometrics 2005, 62(3):367-384. 10.1007/s11192-005-0028-2.
29. Simonton D.K. Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist 2004, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, NY.
30. Strevens M. The role of the Matthew effect in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2006, 37(2):159-170. 10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.07.009.
31. Tol R.S.J. The Matthew effect defined and tested for the 100 most prolific economists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60(2):420-426. 10.1002/asi.20968.
32. Tol R.S.J. The Matthew effect for cohorts of economists. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(2):522-527. 10.1016/j.joi.2013.02.001.
33. Van Looy B., Ranga M., Callaert J., Debackere K., Zimmermann E. Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?. Research Policy 2004, 33(3):425-441. 10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.004.
34. van Raan A.F.J. Performance-related differences of bibliometric statistical properties of research groups: Cumulative advantages and hierarchically layered networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2006, 57(14):1919-1935. 10.1002/asi.20389.
35. van Raan A.F.J. Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: Research group indicator distributions and correlations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2006, 57(3):408-430. 10.1002/asi.20284.
36. van Raan A.F.J. Bibliometric statistical properties of the 100 largest European research universities: Prevalent scaling rules in the science system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(3):461-475. 10.1002/asi.20761.
37. van Raan A.F.J. Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2008, 59(4):565-576. 10.1002/asi.20765.
38. Wang J. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics 2013, 94(3):851-872. 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9.
39. Wang J., Berzins K., Hicks D., Melkers J., Xiao F., Pinheiro D. A boosted-trees method for name disambiguation. Scientometrics 2012, 93(2):391-411. 10.1007/s11192-012-0681-1.
40. Whitley R. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences 2000, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK/New York, NY. 2nd ed.