Do the best scholars attract the highest speaking fees? An exploration of internal and external influence
- 444 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAcademic performance Scholarly Importance Social importance of scientists External and internal influence Book prizes Book bestsellers TED talks
For advice and suggestions thanks are due to two anonymous referees.
- 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.
- Bernal, J. D. (1939). The social function of science. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- 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
- Dixit, A. (1994). My system of work (Not!). American Economist, 38(1), 10–16.Google Scholar
- 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
- Frodeman, R., & Holbrook, J. B. (2007). Science’s social effects. Issues in science and technology, 23(3), 28–30.Google Scholar
- Glänzel, W. (2006). On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index. Science Focus, 1(1), 10–11.Google Scholar
- 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
- Katz, D. A. (1973). Faculty salaries, promotions, and productivity at a large university. American Economic Review, 63(3), 469–477.Google Scholar
- 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 26–27th. Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Nature (2013). The maze of impact metrics. Nature, 502, 271.Google Scholar
- Piwowar, H. (2013). Value all research output. Nature, 493, 159.Google Scholar
- 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
- Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Toronto: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
- Rowland, F. S. (1993/1995). President’s lecture: The need for scientific communication with the public. Science, 260(5114), 1571–1576.Google Scholar
- 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
- Van Noorden, R. (2010). A profusion of measures. Nature, 466, 864–866.Google Scholar