The stars of the academy: How do you get prominent as a scientist?

 "Why are some scientists more prominent than others? One study shows that scientific fame is often not based on current performance alone. But then what? The program of larger scientific conferences often includes lectures by prominent representatives of the subject. You do not have to apply in advance, you will be invited and usually also financially compensated. Even the announcement often makes it clear that it is less about the topic, because the title either remains open until shortly before the date or is identical to that of a recently published work. If the event is still well attended, it is probably less based on the expectation of new knowledge and more on the interest in the person. Similar to the film, book and music industries, politics or sport, science also produces “celebrities”, the charisma of which can exceed the boundaries of their own work, their field or even their discipline. 

The subjective - one could also say: magical - dimension of "Academic Celebrity" is illustrated by Peter Walsh and David Lehmann in their analysis of the phenomenon on the basis of a public lecture in Cambridge: An unnamed, well-known representative of postcolonial and poststructuralist theory holds a well-attended, but largely incomprehensible lecture. The applause after the lecture is significantly less than at the beginning, the commentary begins with a hesitant "If I have understood you correctly ..." and lasts less than a minute. And yet afterwards many interested people jostle around the podium to catch at least a glimpse of the celebrity. 

The Matthew Effect in its purest form. The episode shows that scientific prominence is not based solely, or perhaps not at all, on current performance. 

A “celebrity”, as the American historian Daniel Boorstin put it in the 1960s, “is a person who is known for his well-knownness”. 

Accordingly, it is often said of contemporary media celebrities that they are “famous for being famous”. Well, of course, there is always some reason why someone has become prominent. Academic celebrities often rely on a work that establishes fame. But this is only the starting point for a career that is essentially based on the fact that Robert K. Merton calls the “Matthew effect”, that once a reputation has been achieved, it increases awareness of later achievements. In the competition for the limited attention of the professional public, the celebrities succeed in a disproportionate way thanks to the advantage they have gained. This mechanism of acquiring academic reputation points to an important basis for academic prominence: the competition in citation. Being quoted by others is considered a crucial indicator of scientific achievement. 

Citations are not only unevenly distributed, they are very one-sided. The most frequently cited social scientist, the Briton Anthony Giddens, for example, has six times more citations than colleagues who are still among the “Top 20” in sociology. This has to do with a further dimension of prominence, which is particularly important in the humanities and social sciences: citations are not only used here to refer to concrete research results, but to “flag out” one's own position. However, those whose names are suitable to signal the affiliation to a scientific community prefer to benefit from this “name dropping”.  

Anyone who would like to be famous researches generalities. Academic prominence is thus generated within the framework of the everyday routines of scientific publishing. In the humanities and social sciences, it is therefore primarily based on polyvalence: anyone who deals with general issues can be quoted from many specialist areas. And citations not only improve the chances on the academic job market, but in particular the prospects for a position without teaching and administrative duties - a decisive prerequisite for being able to take advantage of opportunities to present and increase one's own prominence.

Once achieved, prominence is no longer dependent on future performance: it is often spared from testing and probation procedures, such as a critical peer review. And their presence at academic rituals is recognized - see above - regardless of the scientific output. A “celebrity” is not simply a successful researcher personality, but rather represents the subject - and thus something that is valued by everyone involved."