University Affiliation and Recognition: National Academy of Sciences

Gender and Institutional Affiliation as Determinants of Publishing in Human Communication Research

“…The existence of a small, prestigious ingroup of institutions might explain why relatively few universities educate and employ the vast majority of publishing scholars (Kash et al, 1972) and why less than 1% of authors account for 14% of all articles published in the communication field (Burroughs et al, 1989). The prestigious in-group perpetuates a cycle that keeps the most prolific scholars at a disproportionately small number of institutions.…”

“…Consequently, a cycle begins with reviewers (usually prestigious scholars) and editors rewarding the best research with publication and continues as scholars with the most publications, having much prestige (Hagstrom, 1971;Kash et al, 1972;Zuckerman, 1988), review manuscripts. In this cycle, "like rewards like," and a relatively small, prestigious in-group of scholars with a disproportionately large number of publications is created (Kash et al, 1972). Zuckerman (1988) explains the creation of the in-group differently.…”

“…Institutional affiliation may also produce the same effect. That is, many scholars consider the type of research in which they were trained to be the best and will reward similar research efforts (Kash, White, Reuss, & Leo, 1972). Consequently, a cycle begins with reviewers (usually prestigious scholars) and editors rewarding the best research with publication and continues as scholars with the most publications, having much prestige (Hagstrom, 1971;Kash et al, 1972;Zuckerman, 1988), review manuscripts.…”

“…That is, many scholars consider the type of research in which they were trained to be the best and will reward similar research efforts (Kash, White, Reuss, & Leo, 1972). Consequently, a cycle begins with reviewers (usually prestigious scholars) and editors rewarding the best research with publication and continues as scholars with the most publications, having much prestige (Hagstrom, 1971;Kash et al, 1972;Zuckerman, 1988), review manuscripts. In this cycle, "like rewards like," and a relatively small, prestigious in-group of scholars with a disproportionately large number of publications is created (Kash et al, 1972).…”

“…What is more, the rich get richer as the prestige of the in-group attracts additional prestige: The most promising graduate students are attracted to, trained by, and ultimately perpetuate the group; the most productive researchers in the field are attracted to the group (the most prestigious institutions usually have the most resources for recruiting); and less productive individuals at prestigious institutions are stimulated to attempt to rise to the level of productivity of the most productive individuals (Hagstrom, 1971;Kash et al, 1972). The existence of a small, prestigious ingroup of institutions might explain why relatively few universities educate and employ the vast majority of publishing scholars (Kash et al, 1972) and why less than 1% of authors account for 14% of all articles published in the communication field (Burroughs et al, 1989). The prestigious in-group perpetuates a cycle that keeps the most prolific scholars at a disproportionately small number of institutions.…”