Project: BIB 01 — Test of Simonton’s Model of Creative Productivity
|Dates:||June 2001 - October 2002|
|Participants:||Vicente, K. J., Cassano-Piché, A.|
|Collaborator:||John D. Lee and Anna Shearer (U of Iowa)|
|Description:||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 tested 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 was 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 confirmed Simonton’s model. Receipt of the award increased the citation rate of articles, but accounted 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.|
View PDF Lee, J. D., Vicente, K. J., Cassano, A., & Shearer, A., "Can scientific impact be judged prospectively? A bibliometric test of Simonton's model of creative productivity", Scientometrics, vol. 56, pp. 223-233, 2003.
View PDF Lee, J. D., Shearer, A., Cassano, A., & Vicente, K. J., "Does the Jerome H. Ely Human Factors article award predict scientific success?," Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, pp. 935-938, 2002.