User login
Credit: Rhoda Baer
New research indicates that author status affects how frequently scientific papers are cited, but the size of that effect depends on a number of other factors.
Investigators found that, overall, citations increased 12% above the expected level when authors were awarded “prestigious investigator status” at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).
However, certain kinds of research papers benefitted more than others by this increased prestige.
“We find much more of an effect on recent papers published in a short window before the prize,” said study author Pierre Azoulay, PhD, of the MIT Sloan School of Management in Cambridge.
And the greatest gains came for papers in new areas of research and for papers published in lower-profile journals. Younger researchers who had lower profiles prior to receiving the HHMI award were more likely to see a change as well.
“The effect was much more pronounced when there was more reason to be uncertain about the quality of the science or the scientist before the prize,” Dr Azoulay noted.
This paper, titled “Matthew: Effect or Fable?,” was published in Management Science.
The “Matthew Effect” is a term coined by sociologist Robert K. Merton to describe the possibility that the work of those with high status receives greater attention than equivalent work by those who are not as well known.
Positively identifying this phenomenon in scientific paper citations is difficult, however, because it is hard to separate the status of the author from the quality of the paper. It is possible, after all, that better-known researchers are simply producing higher-quality papers, which get more attention as a result.
But Dr Azoulay and his colleagues said they’ve found a way to address this issue. They looked at papers first published before the authors became HHMI investigators, then examined the citation rates for those papers after the HHMI appointments occurred, compared to a baseline of similar papers whose authors did not receive HHMI appointments.
More specifically, each paper in the study was paired with what Dr Azoulay called a “fraternal twin,” that is, another paper published in the same journal, at the same time, with the same initial citation pattern. For good measure, the authors of the papers in this comparison group were all scientists who had received other early career awards.
In all, from 1984 through 2003, 443 scientists were named HHMI investigators. Dr Azoulay and his colleagues examined 3636 papers written by 424 of those scientists, comparing them to 3636 papers in the control group.
“You couldn’t tell [the 2 sets of papers] apart in terms of citation trajectories, up until the time of the prize,” Dr Azoulay said.
Beyond the overall 12% increase in citations, the effect was nearly twice as great for papers published in lower-profile journals.
Alternately, Dr Azoulay pointed out, “If your paper was published in Cell or Nature or Science, the HHMI [award] doesn’t add a lot.” 
Credit: Rhoda Baer
New research indicates that author status affects how frequently scientific papers are cited, but the size of that effect depends on a number of other factors.
Investigators found that, overall, citations increased 12% above the expected level when authors were awarded “prestigious investigator status” at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).
However, certain kinds of research papers benefitted more than others by this increased prestige.
“We find much more of an effect on recent papers published in a short window before the prize,” said study author Pierre Azoulay, PhD, of the MIT Sloan School of Management in Cambridge.
And the greatest gains came for papers in new areas of research and for papers published in lower-profile journals. Younger researchers who had lower profiles prior to receiving the HHMI award were more likely to see a change as well.
“The effect was much more pronounced when there was more reason to be uncertain about the quality of the science or the scientist before the prize,” Dr Azoulay noted.
This paper, titled “Matthew: Effect or Fable?,” was published in Management Science.
The “Matthew Effect” is a term coined by sociologist Robert K. Merton to describe the possibility that the work of those with high status receives greater attention than equivalent work by those who are not as well known.
Positively identifying this phenomenon in scientific paper citations is difficult, however, because it is hard to separate the status of the author from the quality of the paper. It is possible, after all, that better-known researchers are simply producing higher-quality papers, which get more attention as a result.
But Dr Azoulay and his colleagues said they’ve found a way to address this issue. They looked at papers first published before the authors became HHMI investigators, then examined the citation rates for those papers after the HHMI appointments occurred, compared to a baseline of similar papers whose authors did not receive HHMI appointments.
More specifically, each paper in the study was paired with what Dr Azoulay called a “fraternal twin,” that is, another paper published in the same journal, at the same time, with the same initial citation pattern. For good measure, the authors of the papers in this comparison group were all scientists who had received other early career awards.
In all, from 1984 through 2003, 443 scientists were named HHMI investigators. Dr Azoulay and his colleagues examined 3636 papers written by 424 of those scientists, comparing them to 3636 papers in the control group.
“You couldn’t tell [the 2 sets of papers] apart in terms of citation trajectories, up until the time of the prize,” Dr Azoulay said.
Beyond the overall 12% increase in citations, the effect was nearly twice as great for papers published in lower-profile journals.
Alternately, Dr Azoulay pointed out, “If your paper was published in Cell or Nature or Science, the HHMI [award] doesn’t add a lot.”
Credit: Rhoda Baer
New research indicates that author status affects how frequently scientific papers are cited, but the size of that effect depends on a number of other factors.
Investigators found that, overall, citations increased 12% above the expected level when authors were awarded “prestigious investigator status” at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).
However, certain kinds of research papers benefitted more than others by this increased prestige.
“We find much more of an effect on recent papers published in a short window before the prize,” said study author Pierre Azoulay, PhD, of the MIT Sloan School of Management in Cambridge.
And the greatest gains came for papers in new areas of research and for papers published in lower-profile journals. Younger researchers who had lower profiles prior to receiving the HHMI award were more likely to see a change as well.
“The effect was much more pronounced when there was more reason to be uncertain about the quality of the science or the scientist before the prize,” Dr Azoulay noted.
This paper, titled “Matthew: Effect or Fable?,” was published in Management Science.
The “Matthew Effect” is a term coined by sociologist Robert K. Merton to describe the possibility that the work of those with high status receives greater attention than equivalent work by those who are not as well known.
Positively identifying this phenomenon in scientific paper citations is difficult, however, because it is hard to separate the status of the author from the quality of the paper. It is possible, after all, that better-known researchers are simply producing higher-quality papers, which get more attention as a result.
But Dr Azoulay and his colleagues said they’ve found a way to address this issue. They looked at papers first published before the authors became HHMI investigators, then examined the citation rates for those papers after the HHMI appointments occurred, compared to a baseline of similar papers whose authors did not receive HHMI appointments.
More specifically, each paper in the study was paired with what Dr Azoulay called a “fraternal twin,” that is, another paper published in the same journal, at the same time, with the same initial citation pattern. For good measure, the authors of the papers in this comparison group were all scientists who had received other early career awards.
In all, from 1984 through 2003, 443 scientists were named HHMI investigators. Dr Azoulay and his colleagues examined 3636 papers written by 424 of those scientists, comparing them to 3636 papers in the control group.
“You couldn’t tell [the 2 sets of papers] apart in terms of citation trajectories, up until the time of the prize,” Dr Azoulay said.
Beyond the overall 12% increase in citations, the effect was nearly twice as great for papers published in lower-profile journals.
Alternately, Dr Azoulay pointed out, “If your paper was published in Cell or Nature or Science, the HHMI [award] doesn’t add a lot.”