Merton identifies the Matthew Effect as the cumulative advantage through which already recognised scientists receive disproportionate credit, resources and visibility for comparable contributions. The essay’s theoretical strength lies in treating prestige not as an external ornament of science but as an active component of its communication and reward systems. Methodologically, Merton moves between institutional sociology, biographical evidence and the testimony of Nobel laureates to reveal how reputation channels attention before work is independently assessed. The concept bridges sociology of science and contemporary platform studies because visibility generates further visibility, creating path-dependent hierarchies that appear meritocratic while reproducing prior asymmetries. The analysis also clarifies the politics of citation: recognition is a distributive infrastructure that determines which ideas circulate, which careers stabilise and which contributions disappear. Scientific authority emerges not only from epistemic quality but from cumulative social mechanisms that amplify certain names until their prominence becomes self-validating.