Michael Strevens
New York University
Robert Merton observed that better-known scientists tend to get more credit than less well-known scientists for the same achievements; he called this the Matthew effect. Scientists themselves, even those eminent researchers who enjoy its benefits, regard the effect as a pathology: it results, they believe, in a misallocation of credit. If so, why do scientists continue to bestow credit in the manner described by the effect? This paper advocates an explanation of the effect on which it turns out to allocate credit fairly after all, while at the same time making sense of scientists' opinions to the contrary.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.07.009
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,744
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Role of the Priority Rule in Science.Michael Strevens - 2003 - Journal of Philosophy 100 (2):55-79.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

On Fraud.Liam Kofi Bright - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (2):291-310.
Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2020 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axz029.
The Credit Incentive to Be a Maverick.Remco Heesen - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 76:5-12.
Academic Superstars: Competent or Lucky?Remco Heesen - 2017 - Synthese 194 (11):4499-4518.

View all 18 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
131 ( #76,471 of 2,425,258 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #352,133 of 2,425,258 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes