Intrinsic and Extrinsic Science: A Dialectic of Scientific Fame

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 893-898

  Feist, Gregory J ^a  

^a SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

citation indexing; creativity; fame; impact; publication count; replicability

Indexed keywords

ACHIEVEMENT; ATTENTION; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGY; RESEARCH; SCIENCE; WRITING;

ACHIEVEMENT; ATTENTION; AUTHORSHIP; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOLOGY; RESEARCH; SCIENCE;

EID: 85001908146     PISSN: 17456916     EISSN: 17456924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1745691616660535     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Anderson B., Feist G. J., (2016). Transformative science: A new index and the impact of non-funding, private funding, and public funding. Manuscript under review.
2. Asendorpf J. B., Conner M., de Fruyt F., De Houwer J., Denissen J. A., Fiedler K.,.. Wicherts J. M., (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108–119. doi:10.1002/per.1919
3. Beall J., (2013). Article-level metrics: An ill-conceived and meretricious idea. Retrieved from https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/08/01/article-level-metrics/
4. Bouabid H., Martin B. R., (2008). Evaluation of Moroccan research using a bibliometric-based approach: Investigation of the validity of the h-index. Scientometrics, 78, 203–217.
5. Chung K. H., Cox R. A. K., (1990). Patterns of productivity in the finance literature: A study of the bibliometric distributions. Journal of Finance, 45, 301–309. doi:10.2307/2328824
6. Cole S., Cole J. R., (1967). Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 32, 377–390.
7. Egghe L., Rousseau R., (2006). An informetric model for the Hirsch-index. Scientometrics, 69, 121–129.
8. Feist G. J., (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science, 4, 366–371.
9. Feist G. J., (1997). Quantity, impact, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important? Creativity Research Journal, 10, 325–335.
10. Frodeman R., Holbrook J. B., (2012, March). The promise and perils of transformative research. Report on the workshop: Transformative research: Ethical and societal implications, Arlington, VA.
11. Garfield E., Dorof A. W., (1992). Citation data: Their use as quantitative indicators for science and technology evaluation and policy-making. Science and Public Policy, 19, 321–327.
12. Glänzel W., Debackere K., Thijs B., Schubert A., (2006). A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics, 67, 263–277.
13. Greenberg J., (2012). Terror management theory: From genesis to revelations. In Shaver P. R., Mikulincer M., (Eds.), Meaning, mortality, and choice: The social psychology of existential concerns (pp. 17–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13748-001
14. Greenberg J., Koslov S., Solomon S., Cohen F., Landau M., (2010). Toward understanding the fame game: The effect of mortality salience on the appeal of fame. Self and Identity, 9, 1–18. doi:10.1080/15298860802391546
15. Gupta D. K., (1987). Lotka’s law and productivity patterns of entomological research in Nigeria for the period, 1900-1973. Scientometrics, 12, 33–46. doi:10.1007/BF02016688
16. Hagstrom W. O., (1971). Inputs, outputs, and the prestige of university science departments. Sociology of Education, 44, 375–397.
17. Hirsch J. E., (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, 102, 46, 16569–16572.
18. Huang S.-H., Yang J.-M., (2012). A study on the productivity review for management of performance using bibliometric methodology. In Eleventh Wuhan International Conference on e-Business (Paper 4). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/whiceb2011/4
19. Klein R. A., Ratliff K. A., Vianello M., Adams R. J., Bahník Š., Bernstein M. J.,.. Nosek B. A., (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A “many labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
20. Kuhn T. S., (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21. Lotka A. J., (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–324.
22. MacRoberts M., MacRoberts B., (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36, 435–444. doi:10.1007/BF02129604
23. Nosek B. A., Graham J., Lindner N. M., Kesebir S., Hawkins C. B., Hahn C.,.. Tenney E. R., (2010). Cumulative and career-stage impact of social-personality psychology programs and their members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1283–1300.
24. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 1–8. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
25. Priem J., Taraborelli D., Groth P., Neylon C., (2010, October 26). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto
26. Revised NSF Merit Review Criteria. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/overview.pdf
27. Shema H., (2013, November 27). More about altmetrics. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/more-about-altmetrics/
28. Simonton D. K., (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29. Simonton D. K., (2004). Creativity in science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30. Simonton D. K., (2015). Psychology as a science within Comte’s hypothesized hierarchy: Empirical investigations and conceptual implications. Review of General Psychology, 19, 334–344. doi:10.1037/gpr0000039
31. Soler J. M., (2007). A rational indicator of scientific creativity. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 123–130.
32. Sternberg R. J., (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3, 83–100.
33. Thompson D. F., Callen E. C., Nahata M. C., (2009). New indices in scholarship assessment. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(6), 1–5.
34. VanDalen H. P., Henkens K., (2001). What makes a scientific article influential? The case of demographers. Scientometrics, 50, 455–482.