Does early publishing in top journals really predict long-term scientific success in the business field?

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 soaring number of researchers has led to increasingly intense competition in academia. Early identification of scientists’ potential is a practical but difficult issue currently attracting escalating attention. This study takes the business field as an example and explores whether early publishing in top journals is an effective yardstick to recognise scientists who will have better academic performance in their careers. We extract the career records of publication and citations for 1933 business scientists with stable and continuous publication records from the combination of the ORCID and Scopus databases. Through regression analysis and various checks, we find that researchers publishing in top journals early in their careers indeed perform better subsequently compared to peers with similar early career profiles but no top journal publications. Our research sheds light on a new perspective for early identification of potential star scientists, especially in the business field, and justifies encouraging junior researchers to devote themselves to publishing in top-ranked peer-reviewed journals.

Related collections

Most cited references 65

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 1232 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Using the Margins Command to Estimate and Interpret Adjusted Predictions and Marginal Effects

Richard A. Williams (2018)

0 comments Cited 287 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact.

Roberta Sinatra, Dashun Wang, Pierre Deville … (2016)

Despite the frequent use of numerous quantitative indicators to gauge the professional impact of a scientist, little is known about how scientific impact emerges and evolves in time. Here, we quantify the changes in impact and productivity throughout a career in science, finding that impact, as measured by influential publications, is distributed randomly within a scientist's sequence of publications. This random-impact rule allows us to formulate a stochastic model that uncouples the effects of productivity, individual ability, and luck and unveils the existence of universal patterns governing the emergence of scientific success. The model assigns a unique individual parameter Q to each scientist, which is stable during a career, and it accurately predicts the evolution of a scientist's impact, from the h-index to cumulative citations, and independent recognitions, such as prizes.