Reputation is pretty important in most spheres of life, so it’s perhaps no surprise that it’s equally so in academia. Recent research from the University of Innsbruck confirmed that better-known researchers had a much easier time getting published than their lesser-known peers.

The researchers used Vernon Smith, the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 to help prove their point. Smith co-authored an article with Sabiou Inoua, a junior scientist, and submitted it to the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance.

The article was reviewed by over 500 academics, but they weren’t all told that the authors were the same. One group was informed that Smith was among the authors, a second group that Inoua was among the authors, and the last group received no information about the authors.

Reputation matters

The results reveal that 50% of those who received no information about the authors decided to publish the article, just 35% of those who learned that a junior scientist had authored the paper, but this leaped to a whopping 77% when a Nobel prize winner was involved.

“Our results clearly show that the different information about the author strongly influences the evaluation of the quality of the research article,” the researchers explain.

The authors believe the findings are a good example of the Halo Effect, which shows how people, or things, that are viewed positively get a more positive reception in other areas, even when people don’t know or trust their work in that area. They hope that their work might trigger some changes in the peer review process so that it’s fairer.

“As scientists, we are constantly working to improve our methods and processes. This is why the results of our current study have attracted a great deal of interest, particularly in the academic world. Journal editors are already testing new methods to better check and ensure the quality of scientific research results,” they conclude.