Signals in Science - on the Importance of Signaling in Gaining Attention in Science

Which signals are important in gaining attention in science? For a group of 1,371 scientific articles published in 17 demography journals in the years 1990-1992 we track their influence and discern which signals are important in receiving citations. Three types of signals are examined: the author’s reputation (as producer of the idea), the journal (as the broker of the idea), and the state of uncitedness (as an indication of the assessment by the scientific community of an idea). The empirical analysis points out that, first, the reputation of journals plays an overriding role in gaining attention in science. Second, in contrast to common wisdom, the state of uncitedness does not affect the future probability of being cited. And third, the reputation of a journal may help to get late recognition (so-called ‘sleeping beauties’) as well as generate so-called ‘flash-in-the-pans’: immediately noted articles but apparently not very influential in the long run.

[1]  H. P. Dalen,et al.  How Influential Are Demography Journals , 1999 .

[2]  George A. Akerlof.  The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism , 1970 .

[3]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature , 1995, J. Inf. Sci..

[4]  Hendrik P. van Dalen,et al.  What makes a scientific article influential? The case of demographers , 2001, Scientometrics.

[5]  Robert D. Tollison,et al.  Dry Holes in Economic Research , 2003 .

[6]  David P. Hamilton.  Publishing by--and for?--the numbers. , 1990, Science.

[7]  Kène Henkens,et al.  What Makes a Scientific article Influential , 2000 .

[8]  S. Lynch,et al.  Success and Future of Demography , 2001, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

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

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

[11]  H. Schuman,et al.  Citation counts and social comparisons: Scientists' use and evaluation of citation index data , 1990 .

[12]  H. P. Dalen,et al.  Attention and the art of scientific publishing , 2001 .

[13]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[14]  D. Laband.  Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors , 1990 .

[15]  Daniel S. Hamermesh,et al.  Facts and Myths about Refereeing , 1994 .

[16]  ANTHONY F. J. VAN RAAN,et al.  Sleeping Beauties in science , 2004, Scientometrics.

[17]  Kène Henkens,et al.  Demographers and Their Journals: Who Remains Uncited After Ten Years? , 2004 .

[18]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Solutions Manual and Supplementary Materials for Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2003 .

[19]  S. Baldi.  Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations : A network-analytic model , 1998 .

[20]  Russell B. Korobkin,et al.  Ranking Journals: Some Thoughts on Theory and Methodology , 1999 .

[21]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Better late than never? On the chance to become highly cited only beyond the standard bibliometric time horizon , 2004, Scientometrics.

[22]  Publishing as prostitution , 2002 .

[23]  David P. Hamilton.  Research papers: who's uncited now? , 1991, Science.

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

[25]  A. Siow.  Some evidence on the signalling role of research in academia , 1997 .

[26]  Paula E. Stephan.  The Economics of Science , 1996 .

[27]  J. A. Stewart,et al.  Achievement and Ascriptive Processes in the Recognition of Scientific Articles , 1983 .

[28]  Joel Waldfogel,et al.  A Citation-Based Test for Discrimination at Economics and Finance Journals , 1996 .

[29]  B. Frey,et al.  Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing between One's Own Ideas and Academic Failure , 2002 .