The Matthew Effect: Why Science Is Not a Level Playing Field

Although success in a scientific career is often attributed to the quality of one’s work and originality of ideas, the reality is more complex. In June 2025, a team of researchers from the UK-based Research on Research Institute (RoRI) published an article that provides further empirical evidence for an important phenomenon in science that has been debated for decades: the Matthew Effect.

You can read the preprint by the RoRI team here.

What is the Matthew Effect?

“For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.” (Matthew 25:29)

The Matthew Effect in science was coined by sociologist of science Robert K. Merton in 1968. The idea, inspired by the biblical quote above, applies to the world of research: scientists who already enjoy prestige or recognition are more likely to receive further awards, grants, and attention—often regardless of the actual quality of their new work.

In practice, this can look like:

• A researcher whose article has already been widely cited is more likely to be cited again. As physicist Matjaž Perc notes: “Common sense says that merit should be recognized where it exists; however, scientists often cite a paper simply because it has already been cited many times before.”
• Reviewers may subconsciously favor a submission from someone with an established name.
• A scientist who has secured one grant is more likely to win another.

Empirical data supports these mechanisms. The above-mentioned RoRI study analyzed over 100,000 grant applications from Europe and North America. Their findings show that researchers who won grants early in their careers were significantly more likely to succeed in securing funding later on.

Scientific reputation tends to grow not linearly but disproportionately—its growth accelerates over time. In practice, this means that even a small advantage early in a career can lead to massive differences later on. Data suggests that if two researchers produce work of comparable quality at the start, but only one secures a grant, their career trajectories may diverge—not because of ability, but because of the Matthew Effect.

What about the opposite effect? Can failure make you stronger?

One might argue that another saying applies: “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” In other words, might scientists who face setbacks (like a rejected grant application) become more motivated, resilient, and ultimately successful?

This so-called setback effect was also tested in the RoRI study. The conclusion: it doesn’t generally hold true. The data shows that the unsuccessful applicants who eventually reapply for funding form a specific subgroup—they are the very best among the unsuccessful. So it’s not that failure makes people stronger; it’s that only the most resilient try again.

Why should funding agencies and universities care?

These insights have important implications:

• Early success has long-term consequences. If we want to create a level playing field, we need to support those who came close but didn’t quite make it.
• Supporting “near-miss” applicants—those who were rejected not for lack of quality but simply because of limited funds—can help prevent an unintended loss of talent. This is particularly relevant for Czech funding agencies like GA ČR, where there are often many high-quality proposals left unfunded.
• Transparent rules, anonymized reviews, and less emphasis on reputation (or even formal academic ranks, but that’s another discussion) could reduce the cycle of “rewarding past glory.”

A striking example of the potential consequences of current funding practices is the case of Tomáš Mikolov, a researcher who, after returning to the Czech Republic, faced repeated grant rejections. Ultimately, he left academia in the country. If the system discourages even highly talented scientists with international reputations, how many other (less visible) researchers are we losing the same way? This is precisely the issue that targeted support for near-miss applicants could help address. Some funding agencies are already moving in this direction. So-called “bridge grants” for high-quality but unsuccessful applicants can help them maintain momentum and stay active until the next application cycle. This kind of support could prevent capable researchers from dropping out of the scientific ecosystem due to a single failure—and perhaps it’s something Czech funding agencies should consider as well.

What does this mean for researchers?

On the individual level, the takeaways are:

✅ Start as early as possible. As with compound interest, early success in science tends to snowball and shape your career trajectory.

✅ Failure isn’t necessarily a reflection of (lack of) quality. It’s an inherent part of scientific life and often just one step in the process.

✅ Don’t give up after your first rejection. Not everyone gets funded on their first try, but reapplying can pay off—near-miss proposals often succeed the second time.

While the Matthew Effect highlights the importance of reputation, past achievements, and visibility, the foundation of any scientific career remains solid, high-quality work. It’s this that creates the initial opportunities—and there’s no shortcut to that.

Author: Ondřej Machek

Ondřej Machek is a professor at the Department of Strategy at the Faculty of Business Administration, Prague University of Economics and Business. He previously served as the head of the Faculty’s Science and Research Center, where he also co-founded the Center for Family Businesses. Currently, he is the chairman of the Academic Senate of the Faculty of Business Administration. His research and teaching focus on business economics, strategy, and quantitative methods in management. He pays special attention to family business, social capital issues, interpersonal conflicts, and corporate innovation.