IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecmet/v13y2006i4p485-506.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence of a Harvard and Chicago Matthew Effect

Author

Listed:
  • Marshall Medoff

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Marshall Medoff, 2006. "Evidence of a Harvard and Chicago Matthew Effect," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 485-506.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:13:y:2006:i:4:p:485-506
    DOI: 10.1080/13501780601049079
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13501780601049079
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Hudson, 1996. "Trends in Multi-authored Papers in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 153-158, Summer.
    2. Scott, Loren C & Mitias, Peter M, 1996. "Trends in Rankings of Economics Departments in the U.S.: An Update," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(2), pages 378-400, April.
    3. Laband, David N, 1986. "Article Popularity," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 173-180, January.
    4. Joshua S. Gans & George B. Shepherd, 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 165-179, Winter.
    5. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-1067, December.
    6. Aloysius Siow, 1991. "Are First Impressions Important in Academia?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 26(2), pages 236-255.
    7. Laband, David N & Piette, Michael J, 1994. "Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(1), pages 194-203, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Antonelli, Cristiano & Crespi, Francesco, 2013. "The "Matthew effect" in R&D public subsidies: The Italian evidence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1523-1534.
    2. Jakob Kapeller & Matthias Aistleitner & Stefan Steinerberger, 2017. "Citation Patterns in Economics and Beyond: Assessing the Peculiarities of Economics from Two Scientometric Perspectives," ICAE Working Papers 60, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    3. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2017. "What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals," NBER Working Papers 23282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Louis de Mesnard, 2014. "On the marketization of the academic review process. (VF) Sur la marchandisation du processus de referee des revues académiques," Working Papers CREGO 1141001, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    5. repec:spr:scient:v:83:y:2010:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0144-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2355-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Tol, Richard S.J., 2013. "The Matthew effect for cohorts of economists," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 522-527.
    8. Ernest Aigner & Florentin Glötzl & Matthias Aistleitner & Jakob Kapeller, 2018. "The focus of academic economics: before and after the crisis," ICAE Working Papers 75, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    9. Wang, Jian, 2014. "Unpacking the Matthew effect in citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 329-339.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    citation analysis; Matthew Effect;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:13:y:2006:i:4:p:485-506. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJEC20 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.