How To Win A Nobel: A three minute guide

Emily Bates,Kerri Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03349-7

IF: 64.8

2024-10-12

Nature

Abstract:Nature looks at 646 past laureates to work out who is statistically most likely to take home a medal Nature looks at 646 past laureates to work out who is statistically most likely to take home a medal

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

How to win a Nobel prize

Kerri Smith,Chris Ryan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02897-2

IF: 64.8

2024-10-03

Nature

Abstract:What subjects have past winners studied? What age were they when they won? Where do they live? Nature crunched the data on every science prizewinner to find out.

multidisciplinary sciences
Nobel begets Nobel

Richard S.J. Tol

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.04441

2023-03-11

Abstract:I construct the professor-student network for laureates of and candidates for the Nobel Prize in Economics. I study the effect of proximity to previous Nobelists on winning the Nobel Prize. Conditional on being Nobel-worthy, students and grandstudents of Nobel laureates are significantly less likely to win. Professors and fellow students of Nobel Prize winners, however, are significantly more likely to win.

General Economics
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.
Statistical analysis of the laureates of the Nobel Prize in Physics

Yuan Qinjian

2004-01-01

Abstract:From the 1901 Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded till now, there are 164 distinguished physicists who are awarded for their innovative achievement in the field of physics. After doing some statistical analysis on the Nobel Laureates in Physics, there come their features: ①More and more Laureates come from USA and some primary institutions. ②It takes longer time for the other scientists to accept the Nobel Laureates` scientific achievements year after year. ③ It becomes more popular which two or three Nobel Laureates share the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Genius Cliques: Mapping out the Nobel Network

Milan Janosov

2023-09-27

Abstract:In this short piece, I delved into the connections of Nobel laureates by applying Network Science methods to and public data collected from Wikipedia. I uncovered the existence of a central "giant component" in the Nobel laureate network, highlighting the core-periphery structure and the disparity in visibility among laureates. I explored the dominance of laureates in the fields of science and humanities, revealing a polarization that contradicts the trend of interdisciplinary research. Furthermore, it the finding sheds light on the underrepresentation of female laureates in certain Nobel Prize categories.

Physics and Society,Digital Libraries
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
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.
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
Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of Nominees and Winners of the Chemistry and Physics Prizes (1901-2007)

Yves Gingras,Matthew L. Wallace

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0808.2517

2008-08-19

Abstract:We propose a comprehensive bibliometric study of the profile of Nobel prizewinners in chemistry and physics from 1901 to 2007, based on citation data available over the same period. The data allows us to observe the evolution of the profiles of winners in the years leading up to (and following) nominations and awarding of the Nobel Prize. The degree centrality and citation rankings in these fields confirm that the Prize is awarded at the peak of the winners' careers, despite brief a Halo Effect observable in the years following the attribution of the Prize. Changes in the size and organization of the two fields result in a rapid decline of predictive power of bibliometric data over the century. This can be explained not only by the growing size and fragmentation of the two disciplines, but also, at least in the case of physics, by an implicit hierarchy in the most legitimate topics within the discipline, as well as among the scientists selected for the Prize. Furthermore, the lack of readily-identifiable dominant contemporary physicists suggests that there are few new paradigm shifts within the field, as perceived by the scientific community as a whole.

Physics and Society
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
The Nobel Family

Richard S.J. Tol

2023-03-11

Abstract:Nobel laureates cluster together. 696 of the 727 winners of the Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry, medicine, and economics belong to one single academic family tree. 668 trace their ancestry to Emmanuel Stupanus, 228 to Lord Rayleigh (physics, 1904). Craig Mello (medicine, 2006) counts 51 Nobelists among his ancestors. Chemistry laureates have the most Nobel ancestors and descendants, economics laureates the fewest. Chemistry is the central discipline. Its Nobelists have trained and are trained by Nobelists in other fields. Nobelists in physics (medicine) have trained (by) others. Economics stands apart. Openness to other disciplines is the same in recent and earlier times. The familial concentration of Nobelists is lower now than it used to be.

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

Lingche Zhang,Qiuju Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04831-1

IF: 3.801

2023-09-20

Scientometrics

Abstract:Abstract As a prestigious international accolade in science and technology, the Nobel Prize laureates gain significant attention from researchers. Scholars strive to distill patterns and insights from various aspects of this award. This article specifically examined the institutions generating Nobel Prize-winning work, discussed the distribution and mobility patterns of laureates among different types of institutions to roughly map the scientific and technological landscape. Our research findings indicate that universities are the primary generators of Nobel Prize-winning work, accounting for approximately 70% of the institutions, and demonstrate particular adeptness in “attracting” and “retaining” laureates in mobility analysis. The remaining 30% of institutions include governmental research institutions, enterprises, and non-profit organizations. Notably, North America and Europe lead the count with over 300 counts of prize-producing institutions each, establishing themselves as major centers for Nobel Prize production. However, over the past decade, there has been a slight decline in the aggregation effect of the distribution of these institutions.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Extremal Black Holes in Supergravity and the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy

L. Andrianopoli,R. D'Auria

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/e4030065

2002-03-08

Abstract:We review some results on the connection among supergravity central charges, BPS states and Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. In particular, N=2 supergravity in four dimensions is studied in detail. For higher N supergravities we just give an account of the general theory specializing the discussion to the N=8 case when one half of supersymmetry is preserved. We stress the fact that for extremal supergravity black holes the entropy formula is topological, that is the entropy turns out to be a moduli independent quantity and can be written in terms of invariants of the duality group of the supergravity theory.

High Energy Physics - Theory
Work honored by Nobel prizes clusters heavily in a few scientific fields

John P A Ioannidis,Ioana-Alina Cristea,Kevin W Boyack

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234612

IF: 3.7

2020-07-29

PLoS ONE

Abstract:We aimed to assess whether Nobel prizes (widely considered the most prestigious award in science) are clustering in work done in a few specific disciplines. We mapped the key Nobel prize-related publication of each laureate awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, Physics, and Chemistry (1995-2017). These key papers mapped in only narrow sub-regions of a 91,726-cluster map of science created from 63 million Scopus-indexed published items. For each key Nobel paper, a median of 435 (range 0 to 88383) other Scopus-indexed items were published within one year and were more heavily cited than the Nobel paper. Of the 114 high-level domains that science can be divided into, only 36 have had a Nobel prize. Five of the 114 domains (particle physics [14%], cell biology [12.1%], atomic physics [10.9%], neuroscience [10.1%], molecular chemistry [5.3%]) have the lion's share, accounting in total for 52.4% of the Nobel prizes. Using a more granular classification with 849 sub-domains shows that only 71 of these sub-domains (8.3%) have at least one Nobel-related paper. Similar clustering was seen when we mapped all the 40,819 Scopus-indexed publications representing the career-long output of all the Nobel laureates. In conclusion, work resulting in Nobel prizes is concentrated in a small minority of scientific disciplines.
How to network with the brightest minds in science

Lesley Evans Ogden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02086-1

IF: 64.8

2024-06-27

Nature

Abstract:Past attendees of the Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting describe how the event can benefit early career researchers. Past attendees of the Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting describe how the event can benefit early career researchers.

multidisciplinary sciences
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.
[Women in natural sciences--Nobel Prize winners]

Eugenija Zuskin,Jadranka Mustajbegović,Jasna Lipozencić,Ivana Kolcić,Sanja Spoljar-Vrzina,Ozren Polasek

Abstract:Alfred Bernhard Nobel was the founder of the Nobel Foundation, which has been awarding world-known scientists since 1901, for their contribution to the welfare of mankind. The life and accomplishments of Alfred Bernhard Nobel are described as well as scientific achivements of 11 women, Nobel prize winners in the field of physics, chemistry, physiology and/or medicine. They are Marie Sklodowska Curie, Maria Goeppert Mayer, Irene Joliot-Curie, Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, Gerty Theresa Radnitz Cori, Rosalyn Sussman Yalow, Barbara McClintock, Rita Levi-Montalcini, Gertrude Elion, Christine Nusslein-Volhard and Linda B. Buck.
If the Nobel Prizes were designed today, what would change?

Philip Ball

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03279-4

IF: 64.8

2024-10-12

Nature

Abstract:The awards' strict constraints often prompt frustration — if these prestigious prizes were created for the twenty-first century, how would they be different? The awards' strict constraints often prompt frustration — if these prestigious prizes were created for the twenty-first century, how would they be different?

multidisciplinary sciences
A step-by-step guide to landing your next job in science

Linda Nordling

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03926-w

IF: 64.8

2024-12-04

Nature

Abstract:A road map to success based on Nature's hiring-in-science survey, with advice for every stage from application to offer. A road map to success based on Nature's hiring-in-science survey, with advice for every stage from application to offer.

multidisciplinary sciences

How To Win A Nobel: A three minute guide

How to win a Nobel prize

Nobel begets Nobel

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

Statistical analysis of the laureates of the Nobel Prize in Physics

Genius Cliques: Mapping out the Nobel Network

Preprint: Institutional Value of a Nobel Prize

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

Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates: a few suggestions

Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of Nominees and Winners of the Chemistry and Physics Prizes (1901-2007)

Trajectories of biomedical research leading to Nobel Prize–winning discoveries

The Nobel Family

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

Extremal Black Holes in Supergravity and the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy

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

How to network with the brightest minds in science

Understanding Nobel Prize-Winning Articles:A Bibliometric Analysis

[Women in natural sciences--Nobel Prize winners]

If the Nobel Prizes were designed today, what would change?

A step-by-step guide to landing your next job in science