Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 459–486 | Cite as

Gaining scientific recognition by position: Does editorship increase citation rates?

  • Lydia L. Lange
  • P. A. Frensch
Article

Abstract

We investigated three rival hypotheses concerning scientific communication and recognition: the performance hypothesis and two alternative assumptions, the reputation hypothesis and the resource hypothesis. The performance hypothesis reflects the norm of universalism in the sense given byMerton, the reputation hypothesis predicts a Matthew Effect (scientists receive communications and recognition on the basis of their reputation), and the resource hypothesis assumes that communication with other scientitis is used as a form of asset to defend one's own research results.

Using bibliometric methods, we assessed whether assuming an important scientific position enhances scientific impact and prestige. Specifically, we explored whether a person's assumption of editorship responsibilities of a psychology journal increases the frequency with which that person is cited in theSocial Sciences Citation Index. The data base consisted of ten psychology journals, seven premier American and three German journals, covering the years 1981 to 1995. Citation rates for the years prior to, during, and following periods of editorship were compared for three groups: editors cited in the journal they edited, editors cited in a journal they did not edit, and non-editors. The results showed that during their editorship, editors showed an increased citation rate in the journal edited; this result was found for American journals, but not for German journals. These findings indicate that, for American journals, assuming editorship responsibilities for a major psychology journal increases one's scientific impact, at least as reflected by a measure of citation rate. A careful examination of ages of the non-editors' citations reveals that the post-editorship citation rates of editors and comparable non-editors do not differ significantly. The reputation hypothesis (Matthew Effect) is therefore preferred for interpreting the results, because it shows the cumulative nature of prestige-oriented citations. The results contradict the convention of using citation rates as pure performance measures.

Keywords

Citation Rate Social Science Citation Index Scientific Performance Matthew Effect Scientific Impact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. K. Merton, ‘Die normative Struktur der Wissenschaft’, inR. K. Merton (Ed.)Entwicklung und Wandel von Forschungsinteressen, Suhrkamp-Verlag, Frankfurt a.M., 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Kaplan, The Norms of Citation Behavior: Prolegomena to the Footnote,American Documentation, 16 (1965) 179–184, p. 183.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Cole,Making Science, Between Nature and Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Garfield, How to use citation analysis for faculty evaluations and when is it relevant?,Current Contents, Part 1, 44 (1983) 5–13; Part 2, 45 (1983) 5–13.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Pinski, F. Narin, Structure of the psychological literature,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 30 (1979) 161–168.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. J. White, K. G. White, Citation analysis of psychology journals,American Psychologist, 32 (1977) 301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. S. Endler, J. P. Rushton, H. L. Roediger, Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. departments of psychology (1975),American Psychologist, 33 (1978) 1064–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. H. Miller, C. Tien, A. A. Peebler, Department rankings: An alternative approach,Political Science & Politics, 29 (1996) 704–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. P. Byrnes, Explaining citation counts of senior developmental psychologists,Developmental Review, 17 (1997) 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Garfield, The 100 most-cited SSCI-author, 1967–1977,Current Contents, 10 (1978) 5–11.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. G. Heyduck, A. Fenigstein, Influential works and authors in psychology: A survey of eminent psychologists,American Psychologist, 39 (1984) 556–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. S. Howard, J. D. Day, Individual productivity and impact in developmental psychology,Developmental Review, 15 (1995) 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Cole, J. R. Cole, Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science,American Sociological Review, 32 (1967) 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Garfield, The most cited primary authors, 1961–1975, Part 2. The correlation between citedness, Nobel prizes and academic memberships,Current Contents, 9 (1977) 5–15.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. A. Gordon, P. J. Vicari, Eminence in social psychology: A comparison of textbook citation, Social Sciences Citation Index, and research productivity ratings,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 (1992) 26–38.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. L. Helmreich, J. T. Spence, W. L. Thorbecke, On the stability of productivity and recognition,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7 (1981) 516–522.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. R. Popper,Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge & Paul, London. 1963.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science,Science, 159 (1968) 56–63.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. K. Merton, ‘Foreword’, inE. Garfield (Ed.)Citation Indexing—Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities, ISI Press, Philadelphia, 1979, p. VII.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science, II. Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property,ISIS, 79 (1988) 606–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Over, The durability of scientific reputation,Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 18 (1982) 53–61.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Bonitz, E. Bruckner, A. Scharnhorst, Characteristics and impact of the Matthew effect for countries,Scientometrics, 40 (1997) 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. A. Stewart, Achievement and ascriptive processes in the recognition of scientific articles,Social Forces, 62 (1983) 166–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    B. Latour,Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge/Mass., 1987.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    —Ref., p. 39.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. N. Gilbert, Referencing as persuasion,Social Studies of Science, V (1977) 113–122.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    T. Luukkonen, Why has Latour's theory of citations been ignored by the bibliometric community? Discussion of sociological interpretations of citation analysis,Scientometrics, 38 (1997) 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    —Ref., 18 p. 57.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D. Crane, The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals,American Sociologist, 32 (1967) 195–201.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    V. Bakanic, C. Mcphail, R. J. Simon, The manuscript review and decision-making process,American Sociological Review, 52 (1987) 632–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. M. Campanario, The competition for journal space among referees, editors, and other authors and its influence on journal's Impact Factors,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47 (1996) 184–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Sievert, M. Haughawout, An editor's influence on citation patterns: A case study of Elementary School Journal,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40 (1989) 334–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Smart, J. Waldfogel,A Citation-Based Test for Discrimination at Economics and Finance Journals, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 5460, 1996.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    —Ref. 18 p. 62.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. Zsindely, A. Schubert, T. Braun, Citation patterns of editorial gatekeepers in international chemistry journals,Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    P. Bakker, H. Rigter, Editors of medical journals: Who and from where?Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    T. Braun, E. Bujdosó, Gatekeeping patterns in the publication of analytical chemistry research,Talanta, 30 (1983) 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    S. Zsindely, A. Schubert, Editors-in-Chief of medical journals,Communication Research, 16 (1989) 695–700.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    P. C. Friman, K. D. Allen, M. L. E. Kerwin, R. Larzelere, Changes in modern psychology. A citation analysis of the Kuhnian displacement thesis,American Psychologist, 48 (1993) 658–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    T. Stankus, The scientist is appointed an editor: Adjusting the journal collection at stages in a client's career,Library Acquisition: Practice and Theory, 11 (1987) 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. R. Cole, S. Cole,Social Stratification in Science, University of Chigaco Press, Chicago, London, 1973.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    S. Zsindely, A. Schubert, T. Braun, Editorial gatekeeping patterns in international science journals. A new science indicator,Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lydia L. Lange
    • 1
  • P. A. Frensch
    • 1
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Human DevelopmentBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations