National and organizational patterns of Nobel laureate careers in physiology/medicine, physics, and chemistry (original) (raw)
Related papers
PLOS ONE
Based on the entire population of Nobel laureates in science from 1901 to 2017, we show that North America's rise as global power in science started in the 1920s. Following a transition period (1940s to 1960s), its scientific hegemony was consolidated in the 1970s. Yet since the 2000s, North America's global leadership in science has come under pressure. In that time, its share of laureates across disciplines dropped, although it has retained its attractiveness as a destination for future laureates from Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, we find that North America has become apparently less effective since 2010 in transferring capacities for conducting groundbreaking research from one generation of scientists to another. Furthermore, both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region have similarly high shares of newcomer organizations with regard to where prize-winning work is conducted, indicating that these two regions are very active in the inter-organizational competition for scientific talent. Despite this competition, however, we find no support for the rise of a new global center of science.
PLOS ONE
Scientific and/or technical breakthroughs require the exploration of novel ideas and technologies. Yet, it has not been studied quantitatively how national institutional contexts either facilitate or stifle organizational support for exploration. Available qualitative evidence suggests that institutional contexts that exert weak control over universities and research organizations strengthen their capabilities to achieve scientific breakthroughs, while contexts with strong control constrain them. The paper is based on an analysis of the population of Nobel laureates in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology or Medicine. We examine to what extent existing qualitative findings for the biomedical sciences, which are partly based on Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine, can be substantiated both quantitatively and across the three Nobel Prize fields of science. We find that for most of the 20 th century and the early 21 st century, countries with weak institutional control (United Kingdom, United States) have outperformed those exerting strong control (France, Germany). These results are further corroborated when controlled by population sizes and by GDP per capita. In addition, these results hold not only for the biomedical sciences, but also for Physics and Chemistry. Furthermore, countries with weak institutional control have attracted many future Nobel laureates from countries with strong environments. In this regard, the United States appears to be a particularly attractive setting for conducting innovative research, and thus has been a magnet for young and promising scientists. However, future laureates working in institutional environments exerting weak control are not faster in accomplishing their prizewinning work compared to those laureates working in more restrictive institutional settings.
An Analysis of Nobel Prize for World Science (1901-2007): Physics, Chemistry and Physiology/Medicine
The paper presents an analytical study of the Nobel Prize given for the last 107 years since its inception in 1901. A general trend in the subject areas of Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, in regard to the shift in individual benefit to collaborative benefit in Nobel Prize is attempted. In doing so an attempt has been made to show the sharing has emerged in awards. This is reflected in three time eras i.e. Pre World War period; Between World War I and World War II; and Post World War II period. In these periods a study of the beneficiary nations in the three field of science i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Medicine have been analyzed to have perspective opinion of the state of the art. The study reveals that European nations that were dominating the Noble Prize awards in the pre World War period have been sidelined. The trend is visible in all fields of science. The post War period saw the emergence of USA and its allied forces. This also could be as result of migration of intellectuals from Europe, Asia Africa and other continents to USA which needs further exploration.
Scientific elite revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact
Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2020
Throughout history, a relatively small number of individuals have made a profound and lasting impact on science and society. Despite long-standing, multidisciplinary interests in understanding careers of elite scientists, there have been limited attempts for a quantitative, career-level analysis. Here, we leverage a comprehensive dataset we assembled, allowing us to trace the entire career histories of nearly all Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine over the past century. We find that, although Nobel laureates were energetic producers from the outset, producing works that garner unusually high impact, their careers before winning the prize follow relatively similar patterns to those of ordinary scientists, being characterized by hot streaks and increasing reliance on collaborations. We also uncovered notable variations along their careers, often associated with the Nobel Prize, including shifting coauthorship structure in the prize-winning work, and a significant but temporary dip in the impact of work they produce after winning the Nobel Prize. Together, these results document quantitative patterns governing the careers of scientific elites, offering an empirical basis for a deeper understanding of the hallmarks of exceptional careers in science.
Nobel laureates are almost the same as us
Nature Reviews Physics, 2019
Career patterns in different leagues Landau's list, which the brilliant Russian physicist Lev Landau kept in his notebook, is often considered one of the most famous rankings of physicists. He ranked physicists on a logarithmic scale of achievement, grading them into 'leagues' 1. According to Landau's classification, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein belonged to a super league, with Newton receiving the highest rank of 0, followed by Einstein's 0.5. The first ordinary league, a rank of 1, consists of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, such as Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac and Erwin Schrödinger. Landau originally graded himself a modest 2.5, which he elevated to 2 after discovering superfluidity, for which he was awarded the physics Nobel Prize in 1962. The classification continues all the way to the rank of 5 for mundane physicists, like us. In his 1988 talk My Life with Landau: Homage of a 4 1/2 to a 2, David Mermin, who with Neil Ashcroft co-authored the legendary textbook Solid State Physics, rated himself a "struggling 4.5". For those who successfully advanced from class 5 or earned a Nobel Prize, or both, the impact and relevance of their work is obvious. Yet, for the remaining scientists, who like us safely retain the rank of 5, one question lingers: whether the careers of those in the 'big leagues' follow the same patterns as ours, the 'mere mortals'. Research on scientific careers to date has suggested that the answer is, perhaps unfortunately, no. Quantitative studies of careers of Nobel laureates and ordinary scientists have revealed two important markers that seem to consistently set the Nobel laureates apart. First, literature in the field of innovation shows that the prize-winning works by Nobel laureates tend to occur early within a career 2 , providing evidence of precocious minds that break through in an exceptional way. By contrast, growing evidence shows that ordinary scientific careers are determined by the random impact rule 3,4 , suggesting that age and creativity are not intertwined, and the most important work in a career occurs randomly within the sequence of works. Second, there is an acclaimed tradition in the history of science that emphasizes the role of individual genius in scientific discovery. However, one of the most fundamental shifts in science over the past century is the flourishing of large teams across all areas of science 5,6. This shift raises the question of whether Nobel laureates are unique in being solitary thinkers making guiding contributions.
Nobel laureates in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine: relation between research funding and citations
Research Square (Research Square), 2023
One of the vital problems in scientometrics is to explore the factors that affect the growth of citations in publications and in general the diffusion of knowledge in science and society. The goal of this study is to analyze the relation between funded and unfunded papers and citations of Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry and medicine over 2019-2020 period and the same relation in these research elds as a whole to clarify the scienti c development. Original results here reveal that in chemistry and medicine, funded papers of Nobel Laureates have higher citations than unfunded papers, vice versa in physics that has high citations in unfunded papers. Instead, when overall research elds of physics, chemistry and medicine are analyzed, funded papers have a higher level of citations than unfunded, with a higher scaling factor in chemistry and medicine. General properties of this study are that: a) funded articles receive more citations than unfunded papers in research elds of physics, chemistry and medicine, generating a high Matthew effect given by a higher accumulation and growth of citations with the growth of papers, b) funding increases the citations of articles in elds oriented to applied research (such as, chemistry and medicine) more than elds oriented to basic research (physics). Overall, then, results here can explain some characteristics of scienti c dynamics, showing the critical role of funding to foster citations and diffusion of knowledge, also having potential commercial implications in applied research. Results here can be provide useful information to understand drivers of the scienti c development in basic and applied research elds to better allocate nancial resources in research elds directed to support a positive scienti c and societal impact. 2018 because articles need from three to ve years to receive a certain amount of citations (Clements, 2017). Table 1 shows the Nobel Laureates analyzed in this study.