The Matthew effect in science funding

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 115, Issue 19, 2018, Pages 4887-4890

  Bol, Thijs ^a   De Vaan, Mathijs ^b   Van De Rijt, Arnout ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

cumulative advantage; Matthew effect; regression discontinuity; science funding; sociology of science

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ACADEMIC SUCCESS; ARTICLE; CAREER; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FUNDING; HUMAN; INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS; PROGRAM IMPACT; PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENCE; SCIENTIST;

EID: 85045995663     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1719557115     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159:56–63.
2. Fernandez R, Rodrik D (1991) Resistance to reform: Status quo bias in the presence of individual-specific uncertainty. Am Econ Rev 81:1146–1155.
3. Lynn FB, Podolny JM, Tao L (2009) A sociological (de) construction of the relationship between status and quality. Am J Sociol 115:755–804.
4. Squazzoni F, Gandelli C (2012) Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure. J Informetrics 6:265–275.
5. Allison PD, Long JS, Krauze TK (1982) Cumulative advantage and inequality in science. Am Sociol Rev 47:615–625.
6. Dannefer D (1987) Aging as intracohort differentiation: Accentuation, the Matthew effect, and the life course. Sociol Forum 2:211–236.
7. DiPrete TA, Eirich GM (2006) Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annu Rev Sociol 32:271–297.
8. Salganik MJ, Dodds PS, Watts DJ (2006) Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311:854–856.
9. Muchnik L, Aral S, Taylor SJ (2013) Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science 341:647–651.
10. van de Rijt A, Kang SM, Restivo M, Patil A (2014) Field experiments of success-breeds-success dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:6934–6939.
11. Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214: 881–886.
12. Cole JR, Cole S (1973) Social Stratification in Science (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago).
13. Allison PD, Stewart JA (1974) Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. Am Sociol Rev 39:596–606.
14. Simonton DK (1997) Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychol Rev 104:66–89.
15. Denrell J, Liu C (2012) Top performers are not the most impressive when extreme performance indicates unreliability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:9331–9336.
16. Wang D, Song C, Barabási A-L (2013) Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science 342:127–132.
17. Sinatra R, Wang D, Deville P, Song C, Barabási A-L (2016) Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science 354:aaf5239.
18. Rosen S (1981) The economics of superstars. Am Econ Rev 71:845–858.
19. Frank RH, Cook PJ (2010) The Winner-Take-All Society: Why the Few at the Top Get so Much More than the Rest of Us (Random House, New York).
20. Reskin BF (1977) Scientific productivity and the reward structure of science. Am Sociol Rev 42:491–504.
21. Huber JC (1998) Cumulative advantage and success-breeds-success: The value of time pattern analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci 49:471–476.
22. Petersen AM, Jung W-S, Yang J-S, Stanley HE (2011) Quantitative and empirical demonstration of the Matthew effect in a study of career longevity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:18–23.
23. Chan HF, Frey BS, Gallus J, Torgler B (2014) Academic honors and performance. Labour Econ 31:188–204.
24. Azoulay P, Stuart T, Wang Y (2013) Matthew: Effect or fable? Manage Sci 60:92–109.
25. Farys R, Wolbring T (2017) Matched control groups for modeling events in citation data: An illustration of Nobel Prize effects in citation networks. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 68:2201–2210.
26. Lotka AJ (1926) The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Wash Acad Sci 16:317–323.
27. Simon HA (1955) On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika 42:425–440.
28. Price DDS (1976) A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 27:292–306.
29. Barabási A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286: 509–512.
30. Ma A, Mondragón RJ, Latora V (2015) Anatomy of funded research in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:14760–14765.
31. Larivière V, Gingras Y (2010) The impact factor’s Matthew effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 61:424–427.
32. Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman ME (2009) Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev 51:661–703.
33. Stumpf MP, Porter MA (2012) Mathematics. Critical truths about power laws. Science 335:665–666.
34. Simcoe TS, Waguespack DM (2011) Status, quality, and attention: What’s in a (missing) name? Manage Sci 57:274–290.
35. Lee DS, Lemieux T (2010) Regression discontinuity designs in economics. J Econ Lit 48: 281–355.
36. Jacob BA, Lefgren L (2011) The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. J Public Econ 95:1168–1177.
37. Ganguli I (2017) Saving Soviet science: The impact of grants when government R&D funding disappears. Am Econ J Appl Econ 9:165–201.
38. Li D, Agha L (2015) Research funding. Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science 348:434–438.
39. Lok C (2016) Science’s 1%: How income inequality is getting worse in research. Nature 537:471–473.