Evidence of a Harvard and Chicago Matthew Effect

The Matthew Effect refers to the hypothesis that a scientific contribution will receive disproportionate peer recognition whenever there are sharp and distinct differences in prestige within the academic stratification system. This paper empirically examines whether there is an institutional Matthew Effect in economics: does the prestige of an author's economics department influence the visibility or allocation of peer recognition of a scientific contribution? After controlling for author quality, journal quality and article‐specific characteristics, the empirical results showed nineteen universities classified as elite have a statistically and numerically positive impact on the level of peer recognition of a scientific contribution. However, further analysis found that the positive institutional Matthew Effect of these elite universities was due solely to the differential peer recognition of scientific contributions by economists affiliated with the economics departments of Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

[1]  P. Samuelson Economists and the history of ideas , 1962 .

[2]  Paul A. David,et al.  Positive Feedback and Research Productivity in Science: Reopening Another Black Box , 1994 .

[3]  Stephen Cole,et al.  Social Stratification in Science , 1974 .

[4]  Marshall H. Medoff,et al.  The Ranking of Economists. , 1989 .

[5]  A. Vandermeulen,et al.  Manuscripts in the maelstrom: A theory of the editorial process , 1972 .

[6]  L. C. Scott,et al.  Trends in Rankings of Economics Departments in the U.S.: An Update , 1996 .

[7]  David N. Laband,et al.  Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors , 1994, Journal of Political Economy.

[8]  Gaines H. Liner Core Journals in Economics , 2002 .

[9]  M. F. Fox,et al.  Independence and Cooperation in Research. The Motivations and Costs of Collaboration. , 1984 .

[10]  R. Blank The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review , 1991 .

[11]  George J. Stigler,et al.  The Citation Practices of Doctorates in Economics , 1975, Journal of Political Economy.

[12]  R. Jackson,et al.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1988, International journal of dermatology.

[13]  Galina F. Gordukalova : Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States , 1997 .

[14]  D. Laband,et al.  The Relative Impacts of Economics Journals: 1970-1990 , 1994 .

[15]  Dan Johnson Getting Noticed in Economics: The Determinants of Academic Citations , 1997 .

[16]  J. Ravetz Sociology of Science , 1972, Nature.

[17]  R. Quandt Some Quantitative Aspects of the Economics Journal Literature , 1976, Journal of Political Economy.

[18]  D. Hamermesh,et al.  Scholarships, Citations and Salaries: Economic Rewards in Economics , 1982 .

[19]  David L. Kaserman,et al.  The Rising Incidence of Co-authorship in Economics: Further Evidence , 1988 .

[20]  Harriet Zuckerman,et al.  Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States: , 1979 .

[21]  J. Gans,et al.  How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists , 1994 .

[22]  A. Siow Are First Impressions Important in Academia , 1991 .

[23]  John Hudson,et al.  Trends in Multi-authored Papers in Economics , 1996 .