PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 8, 2009Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology235 citations

The impact factor's Matthew Effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics

View Full Paper
VLVincent LarivièreYGYves Gingras

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Abstract Since the publication of Robert K. Merton's theory of cumulative advantage in science (Matthew Effect), several empirical studies have tried to measure its presence at the level of papers, individual researchers, institutions, or countries. However, these studies seldom control for the intrinsic “quality” of papers or of researchers—“better” (however defined) papers or researchers could receive higher citation rates because they are indeed of better quality. Using an original method for controlling the intrinsic value of papers—identical duplicate papers published in different journals with different impact factors—this paper shows that the journal in which papers are published have a strong influence on their citation rates, as duplicate papers published in high‐impact journals obtain, on average, twice as many citations as their identical counterparts published in journals with lower impact factors. The intrinsic value of a paper is thus not the only reason a given paper gets cited or not, there is a specific Matthew Effect attached to journals and this gives to papers published there an added value over and above their intrinsic quality.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Larivière et al. (2009) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1e6fbe74572fec71952dcahttps://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21232
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980‐2007)2010 · 28 citations
  2. 2New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications1995 · 512 citations
  3. 3The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered.1968 · 4,883 citations
  4. 4New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing1963 · 433 citations