Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 502

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Scientists at Major and Minor Universities: A Study of Productivity and Recognition

Crane, Diana·1965·American Sociological Review

Abstract

Scientists at major schools are more likely to be productive and to win recognition than scientists at minor universities, which suggests that universities provide different environments for scientific research. Indices of productivity and recognition that differentiate between major and minor publications and major and minor honors were applied to the research careers of 150 scientists located at three universities of varying prestige. The best graduate schools select the best students, the best of whom are trained by top scientists and become the next generation's most productive scientists. Scientists trained and later hired by minor universities had difficulty developing continuity in their research activities and tended to be differently motivated than scientists trained and hired by major universities. In terms of his chances of obtaining recognition, a scientist gained more from affiliation with a major university than from high productivity or from his sponsor's prestige, probably because the major university provided better opportunities for contacts with eminent scientists in the same discipline.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2091138

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Crane, D.
Venue
American Sociological Review
Published
1965-10
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
699
ISSN
0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2325470334
Cited by
502
References
0
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.