The place of theory in scientific research can be subjected to empirical investigation. This possibility is illustrated by examining three issues. First, what determines a scientific discipline's placement in a hypothesized hierarchy of the sciences? This was addressed in an analysis of the characteristics that distinguish various disciplines, including attributes bearing an explicit connection to the role of theory. Second, what individual research programs are most likely to have a long-term impact on a scientific discipline? This was examined by looking at how thematic organization and theoretical orientation influence a scientist's disciplinary visibility. Third, what are the features of scientific publications that render some more successful in terms of long-term influence? This question was addressed by examining how theoretical content determines the impact of journal articles.
AnninE. L., BoringE. G., & WatsonR. I. (1968). Important psychologists, 1600–1967. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 4, 303–315.
2.
AsharH., & ShapiroJ. Z. (1990). Are retrenchment decisions rational? The role of information in times of budgetary stress. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 123–141.
3.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
4.
BerlyneD. E.. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
5.
BestL. A., SmithL. D., & StubbsD. A. (2001). Graph use in psychology and other sciences. Behavioral Processes, 54, 155–165.
6.
ClevelandW. S. (1984). Graphs in scientific publications. American Statistician, 38, 261–269.
7.
CoanR. W. (1968). Dimensions of psychological theory. American Psychologist, 23, 715–722.
8.
CoanR. W. (1979). Psychologists: Personal and theoretical pathways. New York: Irvington Publishers.
9.
CoanR. W., & ZagonaS. V. (1962). Contemporary ratings of psychological theorists. Psychological Record, 12, 315–322.
10.
ColeS. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences?American Journal of Sociology, 89, 111–139.
11.
ComteA. (1855). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte (MartineauH., Trans.). New York: Blanchard. (Original work published 1839–1842)
12.
CraneD. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30, 699–714.
13.
FeistG. J. (1997). Quantity, quality, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important?Creativity Research Journal, 10, 325–335.
14.
GarfieldE. (1987). Mapping the world of science: Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. In JacksonD. N. & RushtonJ. P., Scientific excellence: Origins and assessment (pp. 98–128). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
GarveyW. D., & TomitaK. (1972). Continuity of productivity by scientists in the years 1968–1971. Science Studies, 2, 379–383.
16.
GentnerD., & JeziorskiM. (1989). Historical shifts in the use of analogy in science. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R.Jr., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., The psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 296–325). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
GholsonB., & BarkerP. (1985). Kuhn, Lakatos, and Laudan: Applications to the history of physics and psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 755–769.
18.
GruberH. E. (1989). Networks of enterprise in creative scientific work. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R.Jr., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., The psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 246–265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HagstromW. O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39, 1–18.
20.
HargensL. L. (1978). Relations between work habits, research technologies, and eminence in science. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 5, 97–112.
21.
HedgesL. V. (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science?American Psychologist, 42, 443–455.
22.
HeydukR. G., & FenigsteinA. (1984). Influential works and authors in psychology: A survey of eminent psychologists. American Psychologist, 39, 556–559.
23.
KimbleG. A. (1984). Psychology's two cultures. American Psychologist, 39, 833–839.
24.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
LakatosI. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programs. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26.
LaudanL. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
McDowellJ. M. (1982). Obsolescence of knowledge and career publication profiles: Some evidence of differences among fields in costs of interrupted careers. American Economic Review, 72, 752–768.
28.
MeehlP. E. (1992). Cliometric metatheory: The actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71, 339–467.
29.
MynattC. R., DohertyM. E., & TweneyR. D. (1978). Consequences of confirmation and disconfirmation in a simulated research environment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 395–406.
PriceD. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510–515.
32.
RednerS. (1998). How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. European Physical Journal B, 4, 131–134.
33.
RoeckeleinJ. E. (1996). Citation of laws and theories in textbooks across 112 years of psychology. Psychological Reports, 79, 979–998.
34.
RoeckeleinJ. E. (1997). Psychology among the sciences: Comparisons of numbers of theories and laws cited in textbooks. Psychological Reports, 80, 131–141.
35.
Root-BernsteinR. S., BernsteinM., & GarnierH. (1993). Identification of scientists making long-term, high-impact contributions, with notes on their methods of working. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 329–343.
36.
RosenthalR. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology?American Psychologist, 45, 775–777.
37.
RushtonJ. P. (1984). Evaluating research eminence in psychology: The construct validity of citation counts. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 37, 33–36.
38.
SchachterS., ChristenfeldN., RavinaB., & BilousF. (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 362–367.
39.
ShadishW. R.Jr. (1989). The perception and evaluation of quality in science. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R.Jr., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., The psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 383–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SimonR. J. (1974). The work habits of eminent scientists. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 1, 327–335.
41.
SimontonD. K. (1976). Philosophical eminence, beliefs, and zeitgeist: An individual-generational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 630–640.
42.
SimontonD. K. (1992). Leaders of American psychology, 1879–1967: Career development, creative output, and professional achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 5–17.
43.
SimontonD. K. (2000). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term disciplinary impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4, 1–13.
44.
SimontonD. K. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into psychology's history. Washington, DC: APA Books.
45.
SimontonD. K. (2004). Psychology's status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology, 8, 59–67.
46.
SmithL. D., BestL. A., StubbsD. A., ArchibaldA. B., & Roberson-NayR. (2002). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. American Psychologist, 57, 749–761.
47.
SmithL. D., BestL. A., StubbsD. A., JohnstonJ., & ArchibaldA. B. (2000). Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences. Social Studies of Science, 30, 73–94.
48.
SnowC. P. (1960). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
StephanP. E., & LevinS. G. (1993). Age and the Nobel Prize revisited. Scientometrics, 28, 387–399.
50.
SternbergR. J., & GordeevaT. (1996). The anatomy of impact: What makes an article influential?Psychological Science, 7, 69–75.
51.
SulsJ., & FletcherB. (1983). Social comparison in the social and physical sciences: An archival study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 575–580.
52.
TaylorM. S., LockeE. A., LeeC., & GistM. E. (1984). Type A behavior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms?Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 402–418.
53.
ThagardP. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
WatsonR. I.Sr. (1974). Eminent contributors to psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Springer.
55.
WolffW. M. (1970). A study of criteria for journal manuscripts. American Psychologist, 25, 636–639.
56.
WolffW. M. (1973). Publication problems in psychology and an explicit evaluation schema for manuscripts. American Psychologists, 28, 257–639.
57.
ZusneL., & DaileyD. P. (1982). History of psychology texts as measuring instruments of eminence in psychology. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 3, 7–42.
