Do the best scholars attract the highest speaking fees? An exploration of internal and external influence

Scientometrics

Volumn 101, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 793-817

  Chan, Ho Fai ^a   Frey, Bruno S ^b,e   Gallus, Jana ^c   Schaffner, Markus ^a   Torgler, Benno ^a,d,e   Whyte, Stephen ^a  

^a QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^b ZEPPELIN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^d EBS BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Germany)

^e CREMA CENTER FOR RESEARCH IN ECONOMICS   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Academic performance; Book bestsellers; Book prizes; External and internal influence; Scholarly Importance; Social importance of scientists; TED talks

Indexed keywords

EID: 84919958567     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1379-3     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Acemoglu, D. (1995). Reward structures and the allocation of talent. European Economic Review,39(1), 17–33.
2. Aguinis, H., Suarez-Gonzales, I., Lannelongue, G., & Joo, H. (2012). Scholarly impact revisited. Academy of Management Perspectives,26(2), 105–132.
3. Barbezat, D. A. (1987). Salary differentials or sex discrimination? Evidence from the academic labor market. Population Research and Policy Review,6(1), 69–84.
4. Barbezat, D. A. (1991). Updating estimates of male-female salary differentials in the academic labor market. Economics Letters,36(2), 191–195.
5. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the “introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS. Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics,82(3), 495–506.
6. Barjak, F., Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Which factors explain the web impact of scientists’ personal homepages? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(2), 200–211.
7. Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9), www.dlib.org/back2005.html. Accessed 26 May 2014.
8. Bernal, J. D. (1939). The social function of science. New York: Macmillan.
9. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One,4(6), e6022.
10. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(9), 1381–1385.
11. Bratsberg, B., Ragan, J. F, Jr, & Warren, J. T. (2003). Negative returns to seniority: New evidence in academic markets. Industrial and Labor Relations Review,56(2), 306–323.
12. Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications. Libraries and the Academy,5(1), 105–125.
13. Certo, S. T., Sirmon, D. G., & Brymer, R. A. (2010). Competition and scholarly productivity in management: Investigating changes in scholarship from 1988 to 2008. Academy of Management Learning and Education,8(4), 591–606.
14. Chan, H. F., Frey, B. S., Gallus, J., Schaffner, M., Torgler, B., & Whyte, S. (2013). External influence as an indicator of scholarly importance. CREMA Working Paper Series 2013–16, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
15. Crichton, M. (1999). Ritual abuse, hot air, and missed opportunities. Science,283(5407), 1461–1463.
16. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy,23(5), 487–521.
17. Diamond, A. M, Jr. (1986). What is a citation worth. Journal of Human Resources,21(2), 200–215.
18. Dixit, A. (1994). My system of work (Not!). American Economist,38(1), 10–16.
19. Duncan, K. C., Krall, L., Maxcy, J. G., & Prus, M. J. (2004). Faculty productivity, seniority, and salary compression. Eastern Economic Journal,30(2), 293–310.
20. Dunwoody, S., & Ryan, M. (1985). Scientific barriers to the popularization of science in the mass media. Journal of Communication,35(1), 26–42.
21. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics,69(1), 131–152.
22. Finkenstaedt, T. (1990). Measuring research performance in the humanities. Scientometrics,19(5–6), 409–417.
23. Fischhoff, B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). The science of science communication. PNAS,110(Supplement 3), 14031–14032.
24. Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science,13(2), 285–305.
25. Franck, G. (1999). Scientific communication: A vanity fair? Science,286(5437), 53–55.
26. Frey, B. S. (2006). How influential is economics? De Economist,154(2), 295–311.
27. Frodeman, R., & Holbrook, J. B. (2007). Science’s social effects. Issues in science and technology,23(3), 28–30.
28. Ginsburgh, V. A. (2003). Awards, success and aesthetic quality in the arts. Journal of Economic Perspectives,17(2), 99-11.
29. Glänzel, W. (2006). On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index. Science Focus,1(1), 10–11.
30. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1994). Little scientometrics, big scientometrics … And beyond? Scientometrics,30(2–3), 375–384.
31. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal,35(5), 921–955.
32. Gross, P. L. K., & Gross, E. M. (1927). College libraries and chemical education. Science,66(1713), 385–389.
33. Hamermesh, D. S., Johnson, G. E., & Weisbrod, B. A. (1982). Scholarship, citations and salaries: Economic rewards in economics. Southern Economic Journal,49(2), 472–481.
34. Hansen, W. L., Weisbrod, B. A., & Strauss, R. P. (1978). Modeling the earnings and research productivity of academic economists. Journal of Political Economy,86(4), 729–741.
35. Harzing, A.-W. (2010). The publish or perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pvt Ltd.
36. Harzing, A.-W., Alakangas, S., & Adams, D. (2014). hIa: An individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences. Scientometrics,99(3), 811–821.
37. Henrekson, M., & Waldenström, D. (2011). How should research performance be measured? A study of Swedish economists. The Manchester School,76(6), 1139–1156.
38. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS,102(46), 16569–16572.
39. Holbrook, J. B., Barr, K. R., & Brown, K. W. (2013). We need negative metrics too. Nature, 497, 439.
40. Hosp, G., & Schweinsberg, K. (2006). Für eine handvoll Euros: Der Markt für Vorträge zur Bewertung des Einflusses der Volkswirtschaftslehre. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik,7(4), 459–469.
41. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J.-B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy,35(7), 527–541.
42. John, P. (2012). Debate: How relevant is political studies in the UK? Political Insights,3(2), 16–18.
43. Katz, D. A. (1973). Faculty salaries, promotions, and productivity at a large university. American Economic Review,63(3), 469–477.
44. Kenny, L. W., & Studley, R. E. (1995). Economists’ salaries and lifetime productivity. Southern Economic Journal,62(2), 382–393.
45. Kidd, J. S. (1988). The popularization of science: Some basic measurements. Scientometrics,14(1–2), 127–142.
46. Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2008). Thought leadership: A new indicator for national and institutional comparisons. Scientometrics,75(2), 239–250.
47. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). The web impact of open access social science research. Library & Information Science Research,29(4), 495–507.
48. Letierce, J., Passant, A., Decker, S., & Breslin, J. G. (2010). Understanding how Twitter is used to spread scientific messages. In Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, April 26–27th. Raleigh, NC.
49. Levine-Clark, M., Esther, L., & Gil, E. L. (2008). A comparative citation analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship,14(1), 32–46.
50. ®, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries,7(3), 197–217.
51. Melguizo, T., & Strober, M. H. (2007). Faculty salaries and the maximization of prestige. Research in Higher Education,48(6), 633–668.
52. Merton, R. K. (1941). The social function of science. American Journal of Sociology,46, 622–623.
53. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54. Moore, W. J., Newman, R. J., & Turnbull, G. K. (1998). Do academic salaries decline with seniority? Journal of Labor Economics,16(2), 352–366.
55. Nature (2013). The maze of impact metrics. Nature,502, 271.
56. Nederhof, A. J. (2008). Policy impact of bibliometric rankings of research performance of departments and individuals in economics. Scientometrics,74(1), 163–174.
57. Owens, B. (2013). Research assessments: Judgment Day. Nature,502, 288–290.
58. Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kaffass, M., Miller, S., et al. (2008). Interaction with the mass media. Science,321(5886), 204–205.
59. Piwowar, H. (2013). Value all research output. Nature,493, 159.
60. Priem, J. (2013). Beyond the paper. Nature,495, 437–440.
61. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 15, 7.
62. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Toronto: Bantam Books.
63. Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward and objective measure of scientific impact. PNAS,105(45), 17268–17272.
64. Reskin, B. F. (1977). Scientific productivity and the reward structure of science. American Sociological Review,42(3), 491–504.
65. Rowland, F. S. (1993/1995). President’s lecture: The need for scientific communication with the public. Science, 260(5114), 1571–1576.
66. Rubenstein, L. D. (2012). Using TED Talks to inspire thoughtful practice. The Teacher Educator,47(4), 261–267.
67. Shapiro, F. R. (1992). Origins of bibliometrics, citation indexing and citation analysis: The neglected legal literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,43(5), 337–339.
68. Sugimoto, C. R., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Scholars on soap boxes: Science communication and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(4), 663–674.
69. Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science,34(4), 605–621.
70. Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2004). Do the web sites of higher rated scholars have significantly more online impact? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,55(2), 149–159.
71. Thelwall, M., & Price, L. (2003). Disciplinary differences in academic web presence: A statistical study of the UK. Libri,53, 242–253.
72. Torgler, B., & Piatti, M. (2013). A century of American Economic Review: Insights on critical factors in journal publishing privot. New York: MacMillan.
73. Van Bergeijk, P. A. G., Bovenberg, A. L., van Damme, E. E. C., & van Sinderen, J. (1997). Economic science and practice: The roles of academic economists and policy-makers. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
74. Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review,31(4), 802–821.
75. Van Noorden, R. (2010). A profusion of measures. Nature,466, 864–866.
76. Van Raan, A. F. J. (1997). Scientometrics: State-of-the-art. Scientometrics,38(1), 205–218.
77. Willems, J. (2003). Bringing down the barriers: Public communication should be part of common scientific practice. Nature,422, 470.