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.

Analysis of the Scientific Aptitude of the Nobel Prize Winners in Biomedical Science

Understanding Nobel Prize-Winning Articles:A Bibliometric Analysis

Mapping the scientific and technological landscape: an analysis of Nobel Prize-producing institutions

Trajectories of biomedical research leading to Nobel Prize–winning discoveries

Analysis on the Relationship Between Original Innovations and Science Funds

Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine and chemistry

Japanese Nobel Laureates in Natural Sciences and Its Implications to China

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

Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates: a few suggestions

Discussion on management of biomedical research at universities based on Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Investigating Academic Graph‐Based Factors Behind Funding Success in National Institutes of Health

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

Twenty Years of Nobel Prize for Life Science

Disparities in funding for Nobel Prize awards in medicine and physiology across nationalities, races, and gender

A Bibliometric Framework for Identifying Academic Inheritance Papers Based on Citation Network——A Case Study of the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Work honored by Nobel prizes clusters heavily in a few scientific fields

Thinking on cultivating model of medical postgraduated students based the study of Nobel' s prize awards in physiology and medicine

Visualising the academic mobility of Nobel laureates

The Enigma of the Impervious Nobel Prize for Neurosurgeons

Preprint: Institutional Value of a Nobel Prize

Characterizing Interdisciplinarity of Nobel Laureates' Key Publications