Objectives: We sought the answer to one major research question--Does psychology have a more defined culture of research than social work? Methods: Using "U.S. News and World Report" 2012 and 2013 rankings, we compared psychology faculty (N = 969) from their 25 top ranked programs with a controlled sample of social work faculty (N = 970) in their respectively ranked programs. We conducted analyses and between- and within-group comparisons across each academic rank, namely assistant, associate, and full professor. Three metrics used in these analyses were the h-index, the age-weighted citation rate (AWCR), and the per-author AWCRpA developed by Harzing. This study represents the first of its kind within the social sciences to utilize the latter two metrics, which discern one's lifetime scholarship impact, controlling for both seniority and age. Results: Psychology faculty statistically outperformed social work faculty in every comparative category tested using all three metrics. These included both between each respective discipline and between each rank within each discipline. Particularly surprising was the predominance of the full professors in psychology performance over their social work counterparts. Conclusions: We make an empirical case offering the working hypothesis that a culture of research is embedded in psychology as a profession and academic discipline, and such a culture does not exist in social work. We hypothesize that a main element in developing any profession's scholarship capacity includes ongoing comprehensive research mentorship--a factor not readily apparent in social work academic units.