Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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. N. Kaplan, The Norms of Citation Behavior: Prolegomena to the Footnote,American Documentation, 16 (1965) 179–184, p. 183.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S. Cole,Making Science, Between Nature and Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  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. G. Pinski, F. Narin, Structure of the psychological literature,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 30 (1979) 161–168.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. J. White, K. G. White, Citation analysis of psychology journals,American Psychologist, 32 (1977) 301–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. A. H. Miller, C. Tien, A. A. Peebler, Department rankings: An alternative approach,Political Science & Politics, 29 (1996) 704–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. J. P. Byrnes, Explaining citation counts of senior developmental psychologists,Developmental Review, 17 (1997) 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. E. Garfield, The 100 most-cited SSCI-author, 1967–1977,Current Contents, 10 (1978) 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. G. Heyduck, A. Fenigstein, Influential works and authors in psychology: A survey of eminent psychologists,American Psychologist, 39 (1984) 556–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. G. S. Howard, J. D. Day, Individual productivity and impact in developmental psychology,Developmental Review, 15 (1995) 136–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. K. R. Popper,Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge & Paul, London. 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R. K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science,Science, 159 (1968) 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  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. R. K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science, II. Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property,ISIS, 79 (1988) 606–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. R. Over, The durability of scientific reputation,Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 18 (1982) 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  22. M. Bonitz, E. Bruckner, A. Scharnhorst, Characteristics and impact of the Matthew effect for countries,Scientometrics, 40 (1997) 407–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. J. A. Stewart, Achievement and ascriptive processes in the recognition of scientific articles,Social Forces, 62 (1983) 166–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. B. Latour,Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge/Mass., 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  25. —Ref., p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  26. G. N. Gilbert, Referencing as persuasion,Social Studies of Science, V (1977) 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. —Ref., 18 p. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  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. V. Bakanic, C. Mcphail, R. J. Simon, The manuscript review and decision-making process,American Sociological Review, 52 (1987) 632–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  34. —Ref. 18 p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  35. S. Zsindely, A. Schubert, T. Braun, Citation patterns of editorial gatekeepers in international chemistry journals,Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. P. Bakker, H. Rigter, Editors of medical journals: Who and from where?Scientometrics, 7 (1985) 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. T. Braun, E. Bujdosó, Gatekeeping patterns in the publication of analytical chemistry research,Talanta, 30 (1983) 161–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. S. Zsindely, A. Schubert, Editors-in-Chief of medical journals,Communication Research, 16 (1989) 695–700.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. J. R. Cole, S. Cole,Social Stratification in Science, University of Chigaco Press, Chicago, London, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  42. S. Zsindely, A. Schubert, T. Braun, Editorial gatekeeping patterns in international science journals. A new science indicator,Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany

    Lydia L. Lange & P. A. Frensch

Authors
  1. Lydia L. Lange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. A. Frensch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lange, L.L., Frensch, P.A. Gaining scientific recognition by position: Does editorship increase citation rates?. Scientometrics 44, 459–486 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458490

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458490

Keywords

Search

Navigation