PERSON-TO-PERSON TRANSMISSION OF CAMPYLOBACTER PYLORI

John Berkowicz,Adrian Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(87)92458-5

IF: 202.731

1987-09-19

The Lancet

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

How Does Nobel Prize Awarding Shift the Research Topics of Nobelists’ Coauthors and Non-Coauthors?

Xin Xie,Jin Mao,Jiang Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101602

IF: 3.7

2025-01-01

Journal of Informetrics

Abstract:In this study, we investigate the influence of the Nobel prize promulgation on the research attention of Nobelists’ coauthors, especially those who have closely collaborated with the laureates on the prizewinning topics before the promulgation. Do these coauthors follow the prevailing trend triggered by the Nobel prize and consequently increase their studies on the award topics? Or, conversely, do these coauthors curtail their research attention on the honored topics and divert their efforts to new research horizons? To scrutinize this question, we utilize the APS dataset and the publication records of Nobelists to discern coauthorships among scholars. Then we employ network construction and community detection methods to identify scholars' research topics throughout their careers. Besides, we utilized the Propensity Score Matching to construct a parallel sample of Nobelists’ non-coauthors, who had never coauthored a paper with the corresponding laureate but had published at least one paper on the prizewinning topic. Following this, our main result substantiates that, after the Nobel awarding, coauthors exhibit a discernible reduction in publications on the award topics than non-coauthors. And the distinct choices of research strategy among distinct groups of scholars may be explained by the potential information asymmetry and different understandings concerning the award topics, as well as their distinct research intuitions in determining research direction. This study not only contributes to enriching our comprehension of how scientific prizes play a role in shaping research strategies of scientists within the award filed, but also stands as one of the pioneering contributions that focus on Nobelists’ coauthors.
Trajectories of biomedical research leading to Nobel Prize–winning discoveries

Wendy J. Burnett,E. Andrew Balas,Vahe Heboyan,Kirstin R. W. Matthews

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15154

IF: 6.499

2024-06-06

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract:This study found distinct productivity and collaboration patterns of pre‐Nobel laureates significantly different from other NIH‐funded researchers. Characteristics of productivity and collaborations of pre‐Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine, including journal impact factor, publications, National Institutes of Health (NIH)‐funded grants, patents, coinventors, and coauthors at each academic age can be used as a reference guide for emerging researchers to compare one's research productivity and collaboration patterns with pre‐Nobel laureates. Significant advancements in public health come from scientific discoveries, but more are needed to meet the ever‐growing societal needs. Examining the best practices of outstanding scientists may help develop future researchers and lead to more discoveries. This study compared the comprehensive work of 49 Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine from 2000 to 2019 to a matched control of National Institutes of Health (NIH)‐funded biomedical investigators. Our unique data set, comprising 11,737 publications, 571 US patents, and 1693 NIH research awards produced by pre‐Nobel laureates, was compared to a similar data set of control researchers. Compared to control researchers, pre‐Nobel laureates produce significantly more publications annually (median = 5.66; interquartile range [IQR] = 5.16); significantly fewer coauthors per publication (median = 3.32; IQR = 1.95); consistently higher Journal Impact Factor publications (median = 12.04; IQR = 6.83); and substantially more patents per researcher (median = 5; IQR = 14). Such differences arose from nearly identical cumulative NIH award budgets of pre‐Nobel laureates (median ‐ ‐ 100 M cumulative). An academic age–specific trajectory graph allows aspiring researchers to compare their productivity and collaboration patterns to those of pre‐Nobel laureates.

multidisciplinary sciences
Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates: a few suggestions

Waseem Hassan,Fred Paas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-024-03648-w

2024-12-05

Naunyn-Schmiedeberg s Archives of Pharmacology

Abstract:This study offers insights into a paper by the esteemed editor-in-chief, who conducted a bibliometric comparison of Nobel laureates in physiology, medicine, and chemistry to examine the substantial influence these scientists have had on their respective fields (Naunyn–Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol, 397, 2024, 7169–7185). Analyzing metrics such as laureates' nationalities, ages at productivity peaks, H-index, and age-adjusted H-index, the research highlights distinct career patterns among these distinguished scientists. The present study addresses the limitations of traditional metrics, like the H-index, which may undervalue early-career contributions or multidisciplinary impacts due to its focus on cumulative citations. Alternative indicators such as the H-upper, H-center, and H-tail indices are proposed to capture more balanced aspects of scholarly influence, highlighting top-cited, moderately cited, and broadly influential work, respectively. This study also suggests the value of incorporating composite indices such as the HG-composite and Q2 indices in relevant future studies. A list of other indicators is also provided, which may be employed in similar studies. In the same vein, altmetrics, such as social media engagement, download counts, and mentions in digital and traditional media, further complement these metrics by illustrating the broader, more immediate societal relevance of Nobel laureates' work. The present study proposes a multi-dimensional approach for evaluating research impact, integrating various metrics, and highlighting the need for cross-database comparisons to ensure accurate assessments.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Scientific elite revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact

Jichao Li,Yian Yin,Santo Fortunato,Dashun Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.0135

IF: 4.293

2020-04-01

Journal of The Royal Society Interface

Abstract:Throughout history, a relatively small number of individuals have made a profound and lasting impact on science and society. Despite long-standing, multi-disciplinary 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.

multidisciplinary sciences
Effects of homophily and academic reputation in the nomination and selection of Nobel laureates

Riccardo Gallotti,Manlio De Domenico

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53657-6

2019-11-21

Abstract:In collective decision-making, a group of independent experts propose individual choices to reach a common decision. This is the case of competitive events such as Olympics, international Prizes or grant evaluation, where groups of experts evaluate individual performances to assign resources, e.g. scores, recognitions, or funding. However, there are systems where evaluating individual's performance is difficult: in those cases, other factors play a relevant role, leading to unexpected emergent phenomena from micro-scale interactions. The Nobel assignment procedure, rooted on recommendations, is one of these systems. Here we unveil its network, reconstructed from official data and metadata about nominators, nominees and awardees between 1901 and 1965, consisting of almost 12,000 individuals and 17,000 nominations. We quantify the role of homophily, academic reputation of nominators and their prestige neighborhood, showing that nominees endorsed by central actors - who are part of the system's core because of their prestigious reputation - are more likely to become laureate within a finite time scale than nominees endorsed by nominators in the periphery of the network. We propose a mechanistic model which reproduces all the salient observations and allows to design possible countermeasures to mitigate observed effects.
The effect of novelty on the future impact of scientific grants

Han Zhuang,Daniel E. Acuna

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1911.02712

2019-11-07

Abstract:Government funding agencies and foundations tend to perceive novelty as necessary for scientific impact and hence prefer to fund novel instead of incremental projects. Evidence linking novelty and the eventual impact of a grant is surprisingly scarce, however. Here, we examine this link by analyzing 920,000 publications funded by 170,000 grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) between 2008 and 2016. We use machine learning to quantify grant novelty at the time of funding and relate that measure to the citation dynamics of these publications. Our results show that grant novelty leads to robust increases in citations while controlling for the principal investigator's grant experience, award amount, year of publication, prestige of the journal, and team size. All else held constant, an article resulting from a fully-novel grant would on average double the citations of a fully-incremental grant. We also find that novel grants produce as many articles as incremental grants while publishing in higher prestige journals. Taken together, our results provide compelling evidence supporting NSF, NIH, and many other funding agencies' emphases on novelty.

Digital Libraries
Predicting Scholars' Scientific Impact

Amin Mazloumian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049246

IF: 3.7

2012-11-21

PLoS ONE

Abstract:We tested the underlying assumption that citation counts are reliable predictors of future success, analyzing complete citation data on the careers of ~150,000 scientists. Our results show that i) among all citation indicators, the annual citations at the time of prediction is the best predictor of future citations, ii) future citations of a scientist's published papers can be predicted accurately (r(2) = 0.80 for a 1-year prediction, P<0.001) but iii) future citations of future work are hardly predictable.

multidisciplinary sciences
Methods for measuring the citations and productivity of scientists across time and discipline

Alexander M. Petersen,Fengzhong Wang,H. Eugene Stanley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.81.036114

IF: 2.707

2010-03-24

Physical Review E

Abstract:Publication statistics are ubiquitous in the ratings of scientific achievement, with citation counts and paper tallies factoring into an individual's consideration for postdoctoral positions, junior faculty, and tenure. Citation statistics are designed to quantify individual career achievement, both at the level of a single publication, and over an individual's entire career. While some academic careers are defined by a few significant papers (possibly out of many), other academic careers are defined by the cumulative contribution made by the author's publications to the body of science. Several metrics have been formulated to quantify an individual's publication career, yet none of these metrics account for the collaboration group size, and the time dependence of citation counts. In this paper we normalize publication metrics in order to achieve a universal framework for analyzing and comparing scientific achievement across both time and discipline. We study the publication careers of individual authors over the 50-year period 1958-2008 within six high-impact journals: CELL, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Nature, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), Physical Review Letters (PRL), and Science. Using the normalized metrics (i) "citation shares" to quantify scientific success, and (ii) "paper shares" to quantify scientific productivity, we compare the career achievement of individual authors within each journal, where each journal represents a local arena for competition. We uncover quantifiable statistical regularity in the probability density function of scientific achievement in all journals analyzed, which suggests that a fundamental driving force underlying scientific achievement is the competitive nature of scientific advancement.

physics, fluids & plasmas, mathematical
Rejecting arrogance

E. Marder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CUB.2006.01.037

IF: 9.2

2006-02-07

Current Biology

Abstract:
How citation boosts promote scientific paradigm shifts and Nobel Prizes

Amin Mazloumian,Young-Ho Eom,Dirk Helbing,Sergi Lozano,Santo Fortunato

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018975

2011-05-10

Abstract:Nobel Prizes are commonly seen to be among the most prestigious achievements of our times. Based on mining several million citations, we quantitatively analyze the processes driving paradigm shifts in science. We find that groundbreaking discoveries of Nobel Prize Laureates and other famous scientists are not only acknowledged by many citations of their landmark papers. Surprisingly, they also boost the citation rates of their previous publications. Given that innovations must outcompete the rich-gets-richer effect for scientific citations, it turns out that they can make their way only through citation cascades. A quantitative analysis reveals how and why they happen. Science appears to behave like a self-organized critical system, in which citation cascades of all sizes occur, from continuous scientific progress all the way up to scientific revolutions, which change the way we see our world. Measuring the "boosting effect" of landmark papers, our analysis reveals how new ideas and new players can make their way and finally triumph in a world dominated by established paradigms. The underlying "boost factor" is also useful to discover scientific breakthroughs and talents much earlier than through classical citation analysis, which by now has become a widespread method to measure scientific excellence, influencing scientific careers and the distribution of research funds. Our findings reveal patterns of collective social behavior, which are also interesting from an attention economics perspective. Understanding the origin of scientific authority may therefore ultimately help to explain, how social influence comes about and why the value of goods depends so strongly on the attention they attract.

Physics and Society,Digital Libraries,Social and Information Networks
Long-term Scientific Impact Revisited

Sandro M. Reia,José F. Fontanari

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-02376-5

2021-05-31

Abstract:Citation based measures are widely used as quantitative proxies for subjective factors such as the importance of a paper or even the worth of individual researchers. Here we analyze the citation histories of $4669$ papers published in journals of the American Physical Society between $1960$ and $1968$ and argue that state-of-the-art models of citation dynamics and algorithms for forecasting nonstationary time series are very likely to fail to predict the long-term ($50$ years after publication) citation counts of highly-cited papers using citation data collected in a short period (say, $10$ years) after publication. This is so because those papers do not exhibit distinctive short-term citation patterns, although their long-term citation patterns clearly set them apart from the other papers. We conclude that even if one accepts that citation counts are proxies for the quality of papers, they are not useful evaluative tools since the short-term counts are not informative about the long-term counts in the case of highly-cited papers.

Digital Libraries,Social and Information Networks,Physics and Society
Understanding Nobel Prize-Winning Articles:A Bibliometric Analysis

Guoqiang Liang,Haiyan Hou,Peili Ren,Yi Bu,Xiangjie Kong,Zhigang Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v116/i3/379-385

2019-01-01

Current Science

Abstract:In the present study, we have collected all Nobel Prize-winning articles in the field of Physiology or Medicine from the Web of Science and highlighted the journal impact distribution of these articles. We then explored reference information to understand the articles referenced by the prize-winning papers. Results show that (1) the prize-winning papers cite a large number of journals which have relatively low impact factors and not all prize-winning papers were published in high-quality journals; (2) Method, such as refined experimental techniques, laboratory manuals, etc., is the most popular article type that has been cited; (3) The prize-winning papers, especially recently published ones, show an increasing trend to cite earlier published articles as references.
Quantifying perceived impact of scientific publications

Filippo Radicchi,Alexander Weissman,Johan Bollen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1612.03962

2016-12-13

Abstract:Citations are commonly held to represent scientific impact. To date, however, there is no empirical evidence in support of this postulate that is central to research assessment exercises and Science of Science studies. Here, we report on the first empirical verification of the degree to which citation numbers represent scientific impact as it is actually perceived by experts in their respective field. We run a large-scale survey of about 2000 corresponding authors who performed a pairwise impact assessment task across more than 20000 scientific articles. Results of the survey show that citation data and perceived impact do not align well, unless one properly accounts for strong psychological biases that affect the opinions of experts with respect to their own papers vs. those of others. First, researchers tend to largely prefer their own publications to the most cited papers in their field of research. Second, there is only a mild positive correlation between the number of citations of top-cited papers in given research areas and expert preference in pairwise comparisons. This also applies to pairs of papers with several orders of magnitude differences in their total number of accumulated citations. However, when researchers were asked to choose among pairs of their own papers, thus eliminating the bias favouring one's own papers over those of others, they did systematically prefer the most cited article. We conclude that, when scientists have full information and are making unbiased choices, expert opinion on impact is congruent with citation numbers.

Digital Libraries,Physics and Society
Preprint: Institutional Value of a Nobel Prize

Sasidev Mahendran,Claudia M. Costa,Julie A. Wernert,Craig A. Stewart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.04857

2022-05-01

Abstract:The Nobel Prize is awarded each year to individuals who have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Economics, Literature, and Peace, and is considered by many to be the most prestigious recognition for one's body of work. Receiving a Nobel prize confers a sense of financial independence and significant prestige, vaulting its recipients to global prominence. Apart from the prize money (approximately US$1,145,000), a Nobel laureate can expect to benefit in a number of ways, including increased success in securing grants, wider adoption and promulgation of one's theories and ideas, increased professional and academic opportunities, and, in some cases, a measure of celebrity. A Nobel laureate's affiliated institution, by extension, also greatly benefits. Because of this, many institutions seek to employ Nobel Prize winners or individuals who have a high likelihood of winning one in the future. Many of the recent discoveries and innovations recognized with a Nobel Prize were made possible only because of advanced computing capabilities. Understanding the ways in which advanced research computing facilities and services are essential in enabling new and important discoveries cannot be overlooked in examining the value of a Nobel Prize. This paper explores an institution's benefits of having a Nobel Prize winner among its ranks.

Physics and Society
Dynamics and characteristics of interdisciplinary research in scientific breakthroughs: case studies of Nobel-winning research in the past 120 years

Jingjing Ren,Fang Wang,Minglu Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04762-x

IF: 3.801

2023-06-22

Scientometrics

Abstract:This study explores the interdisciplinary dynamics and characteristics of major original scientific achievements. Based on the perspective of knowledge integration, it combines bibliometric and social network analysis to investigate key publications of Nobel-winning research in natural science and their reference data. The data cover 585 laureates in Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology or Medicine awarded between 1901 and 2020, as well as 835 key publications published between 1887 and 2012 and their 10,894 citation publications. The main findings are as follows: First, interdisciplinary knowledge integration is an essential feature of original scientific breakthroughs, although influential achievements typically result from a novel combination of a larger amount of distant knowledge but in fewer disciplines. Second, the development of various disciplines in natural science has followed different dynamics of interdisciplinary processes for more than 100 years. Chemistry and Physics have experienced a dynamic shift from centralization to decentralization in terms of the concentrated degree of integrated disciplines, while Physiology or Medicine has shown a more generally concentrated trend. Third, Nobel-winning research presents a trend of a greater degree of knowledge interconnection, and the migration of combined research methods, tools, and basic disciplines contributes to the increasingly intense structure of knowledge combination. Bridging disciplines that facilitate knowledge exchange have shifted in the knowledge network across three time periods (the 1900s–1940s, 1950s–1970s, and 1980s and beyond).

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Mitigating Consequences of Prestige in Citations of Publications

Michael Balzer,Adhen Benlahlou

2024-11-08

Abstract:For many public research organizations, funding creation of science and maximizing scientific output is of central interest. Typically, when evaluating scientific production for funding, citations are utilized as a proxy, although these are severely influenced by factors beyond scientific impact. This study aims to mitigate the consequences of the Matthew effect in citations, where prominent authors and prestigious journals receive more citations regardless of the scientific content of the publications. To this end, the study presents an approach to predicting citations of papers based solely on observable characteristics available at the submission stage of a double-blind peer-review process. Combining classical linear models, generalized linear models and utilizing large-scale data sets on biomedical papers based on the PubMed database, the results demonstrate that it is possible to make fairly accurate predictions of citations using only observable characteristics of papers excluding information on authors and journals, thereby mitigating the Matthew effect. Thus, the outcomes have important implications for the field of scientometrics, providing a more objective method for citation prediction by relying on pre-publication variables that are immune to manipulation by authors and journals, thereby enhancing the objectivity of the evaluation process. Our approach is thus important for government agencies responsible for funding the creation of high-quality scientific content rather than perpetuating prestige.

Digital Libraries,Applications
Reputation and Impact in Academic Careers

Alexander M. Petersen,Santo Fortunato,Raj K. Pan,Kimmo Kaski,Orion Penner,Armando Rungi,Massimo Riccaboni,H. Eugene Stanley,Fabio Pammolli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323111111

2014-10-08

Abstract:Reputation is an important social construct in science, which enables informed quality assessments of both publications and careers of scientists in the absence of complete systemic information. However, the relation between reputation and career growth of an individual remains poorly understood, despite recent proliferation of quantitative research evaluation methods. Here we develop an original framework for measuring how a publication's citation rate $\Delta c$ depends on the reputation of its central author $i$, in addition to its net citation count $c$. To estimate the strength of the reputation effect, we perform a longitudinal analysis on the careers of 450 highly-cited scientists, using the total citations $C_{i}$ of each scientist as his/her reputation measure. We find a citation crossover $c_{\times}$ which distinguishes the strength of the reputation effect. For publications with $c < c_{\times}$, the author's reputation is found to dominate the annual citation rate. Hence, a new publication may gain a significant early advantage corresponding to roughly a 66% increase in the citation rate for each tenfold increase in $C_{i}$. However, the reputation effect becomes negligible for highly cited publications meaning that for $c\geq c_{\times}$ the citation rate measures scientific impact more transparently. In addition we have developed a stochastic reputation model, which is found to reproduce numerous statistical observations for real careers, thus providing insight into the microscopic mechanisms underlying cumulative advantage in science.

Physics and Society,Digital Libraries,Data Analysis, Statistics and Probability
Early-career factors largely determine the future impact of prominent researchers: evidence across eight scientific fields

Alexander Krauss,Lluís Danús,Marta Sales-Pardo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46050-x

IF: 4.6

2023-11-03

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Can we help predict the future impact of researchers using early-career factors? We analyze early-career factors of the world's 100 most prominent researchers across 8 scientific fields and identify four key drivers in researchers' initial career: working at a top 25 ranked university, publishing a paper in a top 5 ranked journal, publishing most papers in top quartile (high-impact) journals and co-authoring with other prominent researchers in their field. We find that over 95% of prominent researchers across multiple fields had at least one of these four features in the first 5 years of their career. We find that the most prominent scientists who had an early career advantage in terms of citations and h-index are more likely to have had all four features, and that this advantage persists throughout their career after 10, 15 and 20 years. Our findings show that these few early-career factors help predict researchers' impact later in their careers. Our research thus points to the need to enhance fairness and career mobility among scientists who have not had a jump start early on.

multidisciplinary sciences
Retrospective Analysis of the Effects of BWF Interdisciplinary Postdoctoral to Faculty Transition Awards on Future Funding Success

Mandeep K. Sekhon,Melanie Scott,Cynthia L. Green,Miquella Rose

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.05.602167

2024-07-05

Abstract:Established by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund (BWF) in 2001, the Career Award at the Scientific Interface (CASI) is a career development award for scientists with doctoral training in the physical/mathematical/computational sciences or engineering conducting postdoctoral research in the biological sciences. The goal of the program is to support early career scientists interested in pursuing an independent research career with an interdisciplinary focus. In order to assess the benefit of the CASI award on recipients, the authors undertook a retrospective analysis of the funding data for CASI recipients to evaluate success against matching cohorts. These cohorts included applicants who succeeded to the final interview stage but were ultimately unsuccessful (interviewed), applicants who submitted proposals but did not make it to the final interview stage (proposal declined), and a randomly selected dataset of researchers from a comparable program, the highly competitive Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The results indicate that CASI recipients outperformed unsuccessful applicants and their K99/R00 counterparts in federal grant rates and overall grant dollars. The authors' conclusion affirms that the CASI mechanism and BWF support successfully achieve the objective of invigorating the careers of young investigators, resulting in tangible downstream long-term effects.

Scientific Communication and Education
All downhill from the PhD? The typical impact trajectory of US academic careers

Mike Thelwall,Ruth Fairclough

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.11512

2020-05-23

Digital Libraries

Abstract:Within academia, mature researchers tend to be more senior, but do they also tend to write higher impact articles? This article assesses long-term publishing (16+ years) United States (US) researchers, contrasting them with shorter-term publishing researchers (1, 6 or 10 years). A long-term US researcher is operationalised as having a first Scopus-indexed journal article in exactly 2001 and one in 2016-2019, with US main affiliations in their first and last articles. Researchers publishing in large teams (11+ authors) were excluded. The average field and year normalised citation impact of long- and shorter-term US researchers' journal articles decreases over time relative to the national average, with especially large falls to the last articles published that may be at least partly due to a decline in self-citations. In many cases researchers start by publishing above US average citation impact research and end by publishing below US average citation impact research. Thus, research managers should not assume that senior researchers will usually write the highest impact papers.

PERSON-TO-PERSON TRANSMISSION OF CAMPYLOBACTER PYLORI

How Does Nobel Prize Awarding Shift the Research Topics of Nobelists’ Coauthors and Non-Coauthors?

Trajectories of biomedical research leading to Nobel Prize–winning discoveries

Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates: a few suggestions

Scientific elite revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact

Effects of homophily and academic reputation in the nomination and selection of Nobel laureates

The effect of novelty on the future impact of scientific grants

Predicting Scholars' Scientific Impact

Methods for measuring the citations and productivity of scientists across time and discipline

Rejecting arrogance

How citation boosts promote scientific paradigm shifts and Nobel Prizes

Long-term Scientific Impact Revisited

Understanding Nobel Prize-Winning Articles:A Bibliometric Analysis

Quantifying perceived impact of scientific publications

Preprint: Institutional Value of a Nobel Prize

Dynamics and characteristics of interdisciplinary research in scientific breakthroughs: case studies of Nobel-winning research in the past 120 years

Mitigating Consequences of Prestige in Citations of Publications

Reputation and Impact in Academic Careers

Early-career factors largely determine the future impact of prominent researchers: evidence across eight scientific fields

Retrospective Analysis of the Effects of BWF Interdisciplinary Postdoctoral to Faculty Transition Awards on Future Funding Success

All downhill from the PhD? The typical impact trajectory of US academic careers