The Matthew Effect, a term coined by sociologist Robert Merton, refers to the phenomenon where initial advantages in wealth, reputation, or status tend to accumulate over time, creating a widening gap between the successful and the unsuccessful. In the world of scientific research, this means that a well-known scientist will often receive more credit for a discovery than a lesser-known researcher, even if their contributions were equal. This cumulative advantage occurs because people tend to associate quality with existing reputation, which in turn leads to more funding, better equipment, and higher-quality collaborators for those already at the top. Critics of this theory argue that it ignores the role of genuine talent and hard work, suggesting that those at the top are there primarily because they are the most capable. However, Merton argued that the effect is structural: once a certain threshold of recognition is passed, the system itself begins to amplify that success regardless of subsequent performance. This can lead to a misallocation of resources, as potentially groundbreaking work from junior researchers is overlooked in favor of incremental work from established figures. To counter this, some institutions have proposed double-blind peer review processes to ensure that work is judged solely on its merits.