Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 101, Issue 1, pp 793–817 | Cite as

Do the best scholars attract the highest speaking fees? An exploration of internal and external influence

  • Ho Fai Chan
  • Bruno S. Frey
  • Jana Gallus
  • Markus Schaffner
  • Benno TorglerEmail author
  • Stephen Whyte
Article

Abstract

This study investigates whether academics can capitalize on their external prominence (measured by the number of pages indexed on Google, TED talk invitations or New York Times bestselling book successes) and internal success within academia (measured by publication and citation performance) in the speakers’ market. The results indicate that the larger the number of web pages indexing a particular scholar, the higher the minimum speaking fee. Invitations to speak at a TED event, or making the New York Times Best Seller list is also positively correlated with speaking fees. Scholars with a stronger internal impact or success also achieve higher speaking fees. However, once external impact is controlled, most metrics used to measure internal impact are no longer statistically significant.

Keywords

Academic performance Scholarly Importance Social importance of scientists External and internal influence Book prizes Book bestsellers TED talks 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For advice and suggestions thanks are due to two anonymous referees.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D. (1995). Reward structures and the allocation of talent. European Economic Review, 39(1), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguinis, H., Suarez-Gonzales, I., Lannelongue, G., & Joo, H. (2012). Scholarly impact revisited. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(2), 105–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbezat, D. A. (1987). Salary differentials or sex discrimination? Evidence from the academic labor market. Population Research and Policy Review, 6(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbezat, D. A. (1991). Updating estimates of male-female salary differentials in the academic labor market. Economics Letters, 36(2), 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the “introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS. Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 82(3), 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barjak, F., Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Which factors explain the web impact of scientists’ personal homepages? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 200–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9), www.dlib.org/back2005.html. Accessed 26 May 2014.
  8. Bernal, J. D. (1939). The social function of science. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One, 4(6), e6022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bratsberg, B., Ragan, J. F, Jr, & Warren, J. T. (2003). Negative returns to seniority: New evidence in academic markets. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56(2), 306–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications. Libraries and the Academy, 5(1), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Certo, S. T., Sirmon, D. G., & Brymer, R. A. (2010). Competition and scholarly productivity in management: Investigating changes in scholarship from 1988 to 2008. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(4), 591–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chan, H. F., Frey, B. S., Gallus, J., Schaffner, M., Torgler, B., & Whyte, S. (2013). External influence as an indicator of scholarly importance. CREMA Working Paper Series 2013–16, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).Google Scholar
  15. Crichton, M. (1999). Ritual abuse, hot air, and missed opportunities. Science, 283(5407), 1461–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diamond, A. M, Jr. (1986). What is a citation worth. Journal of Human Resources, 21(2), 200–215.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dixit, A. (1994). My system of work (Not!). American Economist, 38(1), 10–16.Google Scholar
  19. Duncan, K. C., Krall, L., Maxcy, J. G., & Prus, M. J. (2004). Faculty productivity, seniority, and salary compression. Eastern Economic Journal, 30(2), 293–310.Google Scholar
  20. Dunwoody, S., & Ryan, M. (1985). Scientific barriers to the popularization of science in the mass media. Journal of Communication, 35(1), 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finkenstaedt, T. (1990). Measuring research performance in the humanities. Scientometrics, 19(5–6), 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischhoff, B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). The science of science communication. PNAS, 110(Supplement 3), 14031–14032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Franck, G. (1999). Scientific communication: A vanity fair? Science, 286(5437), 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frey, B. S. (2006). How influential is economics? De Economist, 154(2), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frodeman, R., & Holbrook, J. B. (2007). Science’s social effects. Issues in science and technology, 23(3), 28–30.Google Scholar
  28. Ginsburgh, V. A. (2003). Awards, success and aesthetic quality in the arts. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(2), 99-11.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Glänzel, W. (2006). On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index. Science Focus, 1(1), 10–11.Google Scholar
  30. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1994). Little scientometrics, big scientometrics … And beyond? Scientometrics, 30(2–3), 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5), 921–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gross, P. L. K., & Gross, E. M. (1927). College libraries and chemical education. Science, 66(1713), 385–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hamermesh, D. S., Johnson, G. E., & Weisbrod, B. A. (1982). Scholarship, citations and salaries: Economic rewards in economics. Southern Economic Journal, 49(2), 472–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hansen, W. L., Weisbrod, B. A., & Strauss, R. P. (1978). Modeling the earnings and research productivity of academic economists. Journal of Political Economy, 86(4), 729–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harzing, A.-W. (2010). The publish or perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pvt Ltd.Google Scholar
  36. Harzing, A.-W., Alakangas, S., & Adams, D. (2014). hIa: An individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences. Scientometrics, 99(3), 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Henrekson, M., & Waldenström, D. (2011). How should research performance be measured? A study of Swedish economists. The Manchester School, 76(6), 1139–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holbrook, J. B., Barr, K. R., & Brown, K. W. (2013). We need negative metrics too. Nature, 497, 439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hosp, G., & Schweinsberg, K. (2006). Für eine handvoll Euros: Der Markt für Vorträge zur Bewertung des Einflusses der Volkswirtschaftslehre. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 7(4), 459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jensen, P., Rouquier, J.-B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. John, P. (2012). Debate: How relevant is political studies in the UK? Political Insights, 3(2), 16–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Katz, D. A. (1973). Faculty salaries, promotions, and productivity at a large university. American Economic Review, 63(3), 469–477.Google Scholar
  44. Kenny, L. W., & Studley, R. E. (1995). Economists’ salaries and lifetime productivity. Southern Economic Journal, 62(2), 382–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kidd, J. S. (1988). The popularization of science: Some basic measurements. Scientometrics, 14(1–2), 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2008). Thought leadership: A new indicator for national and institutional comparisons. Scientometrics, 75(2), 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). The web impact of open access social science research. Library & Information Science Research, 29(4), 495–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Letierce, J., Passant, A., Decker, S., & Breslin, J. G. (2010). Understanding how Twitter is used to spread scientific messages. In Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, April 2627th. Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
  49. Levine-Clark, M., Esther, L., & Gil, E. L. (2008). A comparative citation analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Li, J., Burnham, J. F., Lemley, T., & Britton, R. M. (2010). Citation analysis: Comparison of Web of Science®, Scopus™, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 7(3), 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Melguizo, T., & Strober, M. H. (2007). Faculty salaries and the maximization of prestige. Research in Higher Education, 48(6), 633–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Merton, R. K. (1941). The social function of science. American Journal of Sociology, 46, 622–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Moore, W. J., Newman, R. J., & Turnbull, G. K. (1998). Do academic salaries decline with seniority? Journal of Labor Economics, 16(2), 352–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nature (2013). The maze of impact metrics. Nature, 502, 271.Google Scholar
  56. Nederhof, A. J. (2008). Policy impact of bibliometric rankings of research performance of departments and individuals in economics. Scientometrics, 74(1), 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Owens, B. (2013). Research assessments: Judgment Day. Nature, 502, 288–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kaffass, M., Miller, S., et al. (2008). Interaction with the mass media. Science, 321(5886), 204–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Piwowar, H. (2013). Value all research output. Nature, 493, 159.Google Scholar
  60. Priem, J. (2013). Beyond the paper. Nature, 495, 437–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 15, 7.Google Scholar
  62. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Toronto: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  63. Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward and objective measure of scientific impact. PNAS, 105(45), 17268–17272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reskin, B. F. (1977). Scientific productivity and the reward structure of science. American Sociological Review, 42(3), 491–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rowland, F. S. (1993/1995). President’s lecture: The need for scientific communication with the public. Science, 260(5114), 1571–1576.Google Scholar
  66. Rubenstein, L. D. (2012). Using TED Talks to inspire thoughtful practice. The Teacher Educator, 47(4), 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shapiro, F. R. (1992). Origins of bibliometrics, citation indexing and citation analysis: The neglected legal literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(5), 337–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sugimoto, C. R., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Scholars on soap boxes: Science communication and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4), 663–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 605–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2004). Do the web sites of higher rated scholars have significantly more online impact? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thelwall, M., & Price, L. (2003). Disciplinary differences in academic web presence: A statistical study of the UK. Libri, 53, 242–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Torgler, B., & Piatti, M. (2013). A century of American Economic Review: Insights on critical factors in journal publishing privot. New York: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Bergeijk, P. A. G., Bovenberg, A. L., van Damme, E. E. C., & van Sinderen, J. (1997). Economic science and practice: The roles of academic economists and policy-makers. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  74. Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Van Noorden, R. (2010). A profusion of measures. Nature, 466, 864–866.Google Scholar
  76. Van Raan, A. F. J. (1997). Scientometrics: State-of-the-art. Scientometrics, 38(1), 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Willems, J. (2003). Bringing down the barriers: Public communication should be part of common scientific practice. Nature, 422, 470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ho Fai Chan
    • 1
  • Bruno S. Frey
    • 2
    • 5
  • Jana Gallus
    • 3
  • Markus Schaffner
    • 1
  • Benno Torgler
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  • Stephen Whyte
    • 1
  1. 1.Queensland Behavioural Economics Group (QuBE), School of Economics and FinanceQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Warwick Business School, University of Warwick and Department of EconomicsZeppelin UniversityFriedrichshafenGermany
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.ISBS, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und RechtOestrich-WinkelGermany
  5. 5.CREMA – Center for Research in EconomicsManagement and the ArtsZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations