The Mertonian philosophy is basically that science is a communal or communist type activity, you know; it’s something you do for the community and you get paid with, your reward is citation. Recognition is the reward, not necessarily true monetary compensation. And there’s people now who are rediscovering Bob’s idea that, that citation is a form of currency. Was he the first one who talked about it that way? What’s your recollection? Citation as a form of currency?

[Q] He, and maybe Warren Hagstrom.

Hagstrom. Right. There’s some people now who are circulating the idea of citation as a financial reward type of idea. Economic... it’s an economic activity for, you know, the more citations are going to get you, say tenure; it’ll get you a higher salary, when, in reality, in East Europe and other places where they implemented these systems based on citations brought you more salary and so forth, well, that’s an economic reward. I certainly didn’t think of that as a... I believed that, that citation was a, you know, an emotional compensation; you know, you got a great thrill out of having your work cited, or quoted. Nothing wrong with that. I mean, that’s something we, just as long as you don’t go overboard and get obsessive about it. That’s what we want people to see, that kind of recognition without it being, you know, without hurting other people. But, we know about all kinds of abuses that can exist and do exist, but they don’t really account for that much in the way science devolves because lousy ideas eventually just fall by the, don’t get cited. Negatives that don’t get you too far.