The Matthew Effect

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath.

Matthew 13:12 (and 25:29), King James Version

In 1968, the sociologist Robert K. Merton coined the phrase “Matthew effect,”[1] [2] describing the phenomenon that well-known scientists often get more credit for their work even if it is very similar to that of an unknown colleague. When you look at the Reviewer Thank-you in this issue, you will see that credit is given to 207 individuals, 11 of whom are marked for having performed 10 or more reviews in the year 2015. A self-critical Editor must ask himself if this might in part be due to a Matthew effect.

Well, three of the dignitaries are members of the Editorial Board who, by position, will be assigned more manuscripts than your average reviewer—but they only account for 27% (3/11), which does not really explain a lot. Two others have a relatively specialized expertise, in turn making them a primary target whenever a corresponding paper is submitted. This leaves 6 out of 11 as presumed victims of a sort of Matthew effect.

A closer look into this phenomenon in the context of scientific publishing reveals many interesting insights. The following, for example, regards Editors choosing articles: “Suppose that editors choosing papers for publication believe at first that all authors or institutions are equally likely to become stars, and that each editor picks one author or institution without any personal bias. Assume further that editors are in their position for a certain number of periods. After each issue is published, they introduce biases by revising their opinion of who the most productive authors and institutions are. This implies that the reputation of some authors and institutions increases after each publication period. Therefore, if there were editors that select specific authors or institutions, who are slightly more known or productive than others, as their choice, those authors or institutions would eventually become a star.”[3] To avoid this kind of selection bias by provenance, this journal consequently follows a double-blinded peer-review process. The original deliberations by Merton, however, also implied that researchers become more prolific when they have gained recognition because it is easier for them to acquire means, grants, and the like, in turn raising the likelihood of getting their papers accepted yet again. This thought has now stimulated your Editor to perform a respective analysis of this journal.

To come back to the reviewers, Markus must admit that Matthew did actually influence him here. Choosing appropriate peers to judge a paper can never be an anonymized procedure and will always remain subjective to a certain degree. So, when a person delivers a review fulfilling all the criteria the Editor longs for but seldom gets, nothing is easier but to repeat this choice. If you write a thorough, objective, helpful comment and return it within a week or two, you are very prone to be invited again soon. You are then likely to succeed up to the stage of becoming an automatic choice—with best regards to Matthew.

Continued critical reflection of regular analyses should, however, pinpoint such conspicuous features: “For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.” (Matthew 13:17, King James Version).

• References

• 1 Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science. Science 1968; 159 (3810) 56-63
• 2 Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis 1988; 79 (4) 606-623
• 3 Serenko A, Cox RAK, Bontis N, Booker LD. The superstar phenomenon in the knowledge management and intellectual capital academic discipline. J Informetr 2011; 5 (3) 333-345