IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v56y2003i2d10.1023_a1021967111530.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can scientific impact be judged prospectively? A bibliometric test of Simonton"s model of creative productivity

Author

Listed:
  • John D. Lee

    (University of Iowa)

  • Kim J. Vicente

    (University of Iowa)

  • Andrea Cassano

    (University of Iowa)

  • Anna Shearer

    (University of Iowa)

Abstract

Simonton"s (1997) model of creative productivity, based on a blind variation-selection process, predicts scientific impact can only be evaluated retrospectively, after recognition has been achieved. We test this hypothesis using bibliometric data from the Human Factors journal, which gives an award for the best paper published each year. If Simonton"s model is correct, award winning papers would not be cited much more frequently than non-award winning papers, showing that scientific success cannot be judged prospectively. The results generally confirm Simonton"s model. Receipt of the award increases the citation rate of articles, but accounts for only 0.8% to 1.2% of the variance in the citation rate. Consistent with Simonton"s model, the influence of the award on citation rate may reflect a selection process of an elite group of reviewers who are representative of the larger peer group that eventually determines the citation rate of the article. Consistent with Simonton"s model, author productivity accounts for far more variance in the authors" total citation rate (58.9%) and in the citation rate of the authors" most cited article (12.6%) than does award receipt.

Suggested Citation

  • John D. Lee & Kim J. Vicente & Andrea Cassano & Anna Shearer, 2003. "Can scientific impact be judged prospectively? A bibliometric test of Simonton"s model of creative productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(2), pages 223-232, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:56:y:2003:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1021967111530
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1021967111530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1021967111530
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1021967111530?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nick Haslam & Lauren Ban & Leah Kaufmann & Stephen Loughnan & Kim Peters & Jennifer Whelan & Sam Wilson, 2008. "What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(1), pages 169-185, July.
    2. Louis Mesnard, 2010. "On Hochberg et al.’s “The tragedy of the reviewer commons”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 903-917, September.
    3. Omar Mubin & Dhaval Tejlavwala & Mudassar Arsalan & Muneeb Ahmad & Simeon Simoff, 2018. "An assessment into the characteristics of award winning papers at CHI," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1181-1201, August.

    More about this item

    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:spr:scient:v:56:y:2003:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1021967111530. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.