Great scientists are seldom one-hit wonders. Newton is a prime example: beyond the Newtonian mechanics, he developed the theory of gravitation, calculus, laws of motion, and optimization. In fact, well-known scientists are often involved in multiple discoveries, a phenomenon potentially explained by the Matthew effect. Indeed, an initial success may offer a scientist legitimacy, improve peer perception, provide knowledge of how to score and win, enhance social status, and attract resources and quality collaborators, each of these payoffs further increasing her odds of scoring another win. Yet, there is an appealing alternative explanation: Great scientists have multiple hits and consistently succeed in their scientific endeavors simply because they're exceptionally talented. Therefore, future success again goes to those who have had success earlier, not because of advantages offered by the previous success, but because the earlier success was indicative of a hidden talent. The Matthew effect posits that success alone increases the future probability of success, raising the question: Does status dictate outcomes, or does it simply reflect an underlying talent or quality? In other words, is there really a Matthew effect after all?