Being highly prolific in academic science: characteristics of individuals and their departments

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The prolific (exceptionally high producers of scholarly publications) are strategic to the study of academic science. The highly prolific have been drivers of research activity and impact and are a window into the stratification that exists. For these reasons, we address key characteristics associated with being highly prolific. Doing this, we take a social-organizational approach and use distinctive survey data on both social characteristics of scientists and features of their departments, reported by US faculty in computer science, engineering, and sciences within eight US research universities. The findings point to a telling constellation of hierarchical advantages: rank, collaborative span, and favorable work climate. Notably, once we take rank into account, gender is not associated with being prolific. These findings have implications for understandings of being prolific, systems of stratification, and practices and policies in higher education.

Related collections

Most cited references 64

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.

R K Merton (1968)

This account of the Matthew effect is another small exercise in the psychosociological analysis of the workings of science as a social institution. The initial problem is transformed by a shift in theoretical perspective. As originally identified, the Matthew effect was construed in terms of enhancement of the position of already eminent scientists who are given disproportionate credit in cases of collaboration or of independent multiple discoveries. Its significance was thus confined to its implications for the reward system of science. By shifting the angle of vision, we note other possible kinds of consequences, this time for the communication system of science. The Matthew effect may serve to heighten the visibility of contributions to science by scientists of acknowledged standing and to reduce the visibility of contributions by authors who are less well known. We examine the psychosocial conditions and mechanisms underlying this effect and find a correlation between the redundancy function of multiple discoveries and the focalizing function of eminent men of science-a function which is reinforced by the great value these men place upon finding basic problems and by their self-assurance. This self-assurance, which is partly inherent, partly the result of experiences and associations in creative scientific environments, and partly a result of later social validation of their position, encourages them to search out risky but important problems and to highlight the results of their inquiry. A macrosocial version of the Matthew principle is apparently involved in those processes of social selection that currently lead to the concentration of scientific resources and talent (50).

0 comments Cited 1249 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis

Peter Peduzzi, John Concato, Elizabeth Kemper … (1996)

0 comments Cited 882 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge.

Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin F Jones, Brian Uzzi (2007)

We have used 19.9 million papers over 5 decades and 2.1 million patents to demonstrate that teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge. Research is increasingly done in teams across nearly all fields. Teams typically produce more frequently cited research than individuals do, and this advantage has been increasing over time. Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact research, even where that distinction was once the domain of solo authors. These results are detailed for sciences and engineering, social sciences, arts and humanities, and patents, suggesting that the process of knowledge creation has fundamentally changed.

0 comments Cited 359 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Title: Higher Education

Abbreviated Title: High Educ

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

ISSN (Print): 0018-1560

ISSN (Electronic): 1573-174X

Publication date Created: June 2021

Publication date (Electronic): August 24 2020

Publication date (Print): June 2021

Volume: 81

Issue: 6

Pages: 1237-1255

Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10734-020-00609-z

SO-VID: 515271f2-47c2-4e72-bf0d-040d076b35d1

License:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.