The Matthew Effect in Science

Abstract

This account of the Matthew effect is another small exercise in the psychosociological analysis of the workings of science as a social institution. The initial problem is transformed by a shift in theoretical perspective. As originally identified, the Matthew effect was construed in terms of enhancement of the position of already eminent scientists who are given disproportionate credit in cases of collaboration or of independent multiple discoveries. Its significance was thus confined to its implications for the reward system of science. By shifting the angle of vision, we note other possible kinds of consequences, this time for the communication system of science. The Matthew effect may serve to heighten the visibility of contributions to science by scientists of acknowledged standing and to reduce the visibility of contributions by authors who are less well known. We examine the psychosocial conditions and mechanisms underlying this effect and find a correlation between the redundancy function of multiple discoveries and the focalizing function of eminent men of science-a function which is reinforced by the great value these men place upon finding basic problems and by their self-assurance. This self-assurance, which is partly inherent, partly the result of experiences and associations in creative scientific environments, and partly a result of later social validation of their position, encourages them to search out risky but important problems and to highlight the results of their inquiry. A macrosocial version of the Matthew principle is apparently involved in those processes of social selection that currently lead to the concentration of scientific resources and talent (50).

Unraveling the attitudes on entrepreneurial universities: The case of Croatian and Spanish universities

“…Matthew-effect in a virtuous spiral that feeds back both activities, each one reinforcing the positioning of the other. The Matthew-effect was originally described by Merton (1968), as the "rich get richer" when applied to the measurement of scientific production. But it also was subsequently reported by Merton (1998) in what regard the allocation of scientific resources.…”

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

“…This makes it impossible to trace the discussions that led to (sometimes substantial) revisions to the original research ( Bedeian, 2003), the decision process leading to the final publication, or whether peer review even took place. By operating as a closed system, it protects the status quo and suppresses research viewed as radical, innovative, or contrary to the theoretical or established perspectives of referees ( Alvesson & Sandberg, 2014; Benda & Engels, 2011; Horrobin, 1990; Mahoney, 1977; Merton, 1968; Siler et al , 2015a; Siler & Strang, 2017), even though it is precisely these factors that underpin and advance research. As a consequence, questions arise as to the competency, effectiveness, and integrity, as well as participatory elements, of traditional peer review, such as: who are the gatekeepers and how are the gates constructed; what is the balance between author-reviewer-editor tensions and how are these power relations and conflicts resolved; what are the inherent biases associated with this; does this enable a fair or structurally inclined system of peer review to exist; and what are the repercussions for this on our knowledge generation and communication systems?…”

User- and Community-Adaptive Rewards Mechanism for Sustainable Online Community

“…In this way, good comments made by new users or the users who haven't contributed highly rated comments so far tend not to receive a deserving attention and to collect sufficient ratings to raise the "karma" level of their contributor. This causes a feedback loop resulting in the Matthew effect [6].…”