The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Productivity Differences Among Scientists: Evidence for Accumulative Advantage
Abstract
The highly skewed distributions of productivity among scientists can be partly explained by a process of accumulative advantage. Because offeedback through recognition and resources, highly productive scientists maintain or increase their productivity, while scientists who produce very little produce even less later on. A major implication of accumulative advantage is that the distribution of productivity becomes increasingly unequal as a cohort of scientists ages. Cross-sectional survey data support this hypothesis for chemists, physicists, and mathematicians, who show strong linear increases in inequality with increasing career age. This increase is highly associated with a changing distribution of time spent on research. Another implication of accumulative advantage is also corroborated: the association among productivity, resources and esteem increases as career age increases.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
(1968) · PubMed · Cited by 4,803
Shackle, G. L. S., & Simon, H. A. (1959) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2228083 · Cited by 3,558
The frequency distribution of scientific productivity
Lotka, A. J. (1926) · Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences · Cited by 2,246
(2014) · The IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology · doi:10.1351/goldbook.l03614 · Cited by 1,784
Social Stratification in Science
Cole, J. R., Cole, S., & deB. Beaver, D. (1974) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1987897 · Cited by 1,135
Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development
Feibleman, J. K. (1963) · The Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.1080/00221546.1963.11774835 · Cited by 668
Stochastic Models for Social Processes
Stone, R., & Bartholomew, D. J. (1975) · International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique · doi:10.2307/1402910 · Cited by 664
Scientific Output and Recognition: A Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science
Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091085 · Cited by 647
The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Functioning of University Graduate Departments
Lodahl, J. B., & Gordon, G. (1972) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2093493 · Cited by 487
An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education
Cartter, A. M., & Sawyer, R. A. (1966) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3048413 · Cited by 482
Cited by
DiPrete, T. A., & Eirich, G. M. (2006) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123127 · Cited by 2,069
The Matthew effect in science funding
Bol, T., de Vaan, M., & van de Rijt, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1719557115 · Cited by 638
Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research?
Simonton, D. K. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.104.2.251 · Cited by 398
Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations
Brooks, T. A. (1985) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/asi.4630360402 · Cited by 256
Quantitative and empirical demonstration of the Matthew effect in a study of career longevity
Petersen, A. M., Jung, W.-S., Yang, J.-S., & Stanley, H. E. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1016733108 · Cited by 228
Metadata
- Authors
- Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A.
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1974-08
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 596
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2312979272
- Cited by
- 544
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 21.39
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Productivity Differences Among Scientists: Evidence for Accumulative Advantage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2094424
- The paper
- Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity Differences Among Scientists: Evidence for Accumulative Advantage. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094424
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.
