The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered.

By R. Merton. 1968

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

The Rise of an Athlete Brand: Factors Influencing the Social Media following of Athletes (2020, unknown): “In line with the Matthew effect, top players gain cumulative advantages over lesser-known players because of the special attention and the subsequent media exposure induced by the league, team, and fans (cf. Merton, 1968).”
Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis (2023, background): “…e.g., researchers from traditionally underprivileged regions who may not have resources to access conferences, or even peer review (their works are much more likely than those of “mainstream” researchers to get desk rejected by journals and thus seldom go through the peer review process 14 ).”
ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence‐written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing (2023, background): “…platforms like ChatGPT have the potential to impact the "Matthew Effect," which refers to the tendency for successful researchers with high citation counts to continue to be successful and cited frequently, while lesser-known researchers struggle to gain recognition and citations (Merton, 1968).”
Engaging Excellence? Effects of Faculty Quality on University Engagement with Industry (2011, unknown): “In developing our hypotheses, we will pay attention to a particular feature of the science system, relating to the strongly skewed distribution of outputs and rewards among scientists (Zuckerman, 1970; Merton, 1968).”
Labeling and Cumulative Disadvantage (2012, background): “Overall, our results help shed some light on previous research by exploring how opportunities for a conventional life are “knifed off” (see Caspi & Moffitt, 1993; Sampson & Laub, 1993, 1997) in terms of official reactions to criminogenic behavior. For example, Moffitt (1993) has argued that continui”
THE BEST AND THE REST: REVISITING THE NORM OF NORMALITY OF INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE (2012, unknown): “Merton RK. (1968).”
What Can We Do to Improve Peer Review in NLP? (2020, background): “…the most objective reviewers, the difference between the worst accepted paper and 2Amongst the biggest success stories in DL-based NLP are word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) Note that both of them contributed a transfer learning paradigm with room for incremental…”
Determinants of citation impact: A comparative analysis of the Global South versus the Global North (2017, background): “…al. (2012); Didegah and Thelwall (2013) Peters and van Raan (1994) Peters and van Raan (1994) Peters and van Raan (1994) Leimu and Koricheva (2005) Merton (1968) Moed et al. (2011) Narin et al. (1991) Moed et al. (2011) King (2004) Glänzel et al. (1995); Katz and Hicks (1997); Narin et al., 1991;…”