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

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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

Kit Neikirk,Zer Vue,Neng Vue,Taylor Barongan,Chia Vang,Heather K. Beasley,Andrea G. Marshall,Annet Kirabo,Celestine N. Wanajalla,Nathan Smith,Derrick Morton,Haysetta D. Shuler,Antentor Hinton Jr.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.31157

2024-01-17

Journal of Cellular Physiology

Abstract:The Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology is one of the most prestigious prizes in the world. Yet, do the winners of it reflect the diversity of science? Neikirk et al. show a relative lack of diversity in Nobel Prize winners relative to the overall field and offer suggestions to improve equity in awards and reporting metrics. Since 1901, the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine has been awarded to numerous individuals for their outstanding contributions. This article presents a comprehensive analysis of the Nobel Prize recipients, focusing on gender, race, and nationality. We observe that an alarming disparity emerges when we examine the underrepresentation of Black scientists among Nobel laureates. Furthermore, trends in nationalities show how Americans make up the majority of Nobel Prize winners, while there is a noticeable lack of gender and racial minority winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Together, this highlights the importance of diversity and inclusion in scientific achievement. We offer suggestions and techniques, including funding opportunities and expanding nominators, to improve the gender, racial, and geographical diversity of Nobel Prizes.

cell biology,physiology
Japanese Nobel Laureates in Natural Sciences and Its Implications to China

zhou cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13580/j.cnki.fstc.2016.12.021

2016-01-01

Abstract:Focusing on the 17 Japanese Nobel Prize Winners in natural sciences in the 21 stcentury,this article analyzed their average age when they received the prize,made their awarded achievement and obtained their professorship respectively,and compared them with those of the Nobel Prize Winners from 1901—2016. The results showed that the average age when they received the prizes was 68 years old,the average age was 40 years old when they got their main achievement and they obtained senior academic title when they are43. 35 years old. It was averagely 28 years after they achieved the breakthrough when they received the prize. Learning from Japan’s experience,scientific research would benefit from setting the title of "emeritus professor" in Chinese universities,allocating more resources to young scholars around 40 years old and an average age of 45 years old for the promotion to senior academic titles. On the other hand,it is inappropriate to set grand targets like "30 Nobel Prizes in 50 years" as Japanese government did in 2001.
A Nobel Pursuit May Not Run like Clockwork

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.030

IF: 64.5

2017-11-30

Cell

Abstract:Living in rural Maine, Jeffrey Hall's own rhythm has been thrown upside down after he received a very unexpected call one morning on the award of this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Together with Michael Rosbash and Mike Young, they were recognized "for their discoveries of molecular mechanisms controlling the circadian rhythm." Cell editor Marta Koch caught up with Jeff on a calm Sunday morning, when electricity at his house had just returned after recent storms. Annotated excerpts from their chat about behavior, misbehavior, and the challenges and joys of working with fruit flies, are presented below.
Places of ‘Invention and Discovery’ and the Nobel Prize in Physics

Kevin Orrman-Rossiter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2020.0014

2020-07-22

Abstract:The Nobel Prize has acted as a surrogate record of invention and discovery throughout the twentieth century. Based on this surrogacy, many claims are made regarding both trends in research and claims for places of research excellence. In this paper I propose that any analysis should be weighted by the ‘prize share’ made by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to each recipient. In addition, I argue for a focus on the organization and period when the prize-winning research was carried out, rather than when the award was made and the often quoted ‘affiliated organization at the time of award’. I use this to briefly examine types of invention and discovery for all Nobel Prizes in Physics awarded to date (1901–2019). I then use this ‘place’ lens to briefly explore trends in invention and discovery in the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Physics. I conclude by drawing attention to the difference between institutions claiming Nobel Laureates and institutions where Nobel Prize-winning discoveries and inventions have been made.
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

How to win a Nobel prize

How To Win A Nobel: A three minute guide

[Women in natural sciences--Nobel Prize winners]

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)

Preprint: Institutional Value of a Nobel Prize

Extremal Black Holes in Supergravity and the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy

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

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

Understanding Nobel Prize-Winning Articles:A Bibliometric Analysis

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

Nobel begets Nobel

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

The Nobel Family

Statistical analysis of the laureates of the Nobel Prize in Physics

Trajectories of biomedical research leading to Nobel Prize–winning discoveries

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

Japanese Nobel Laureates in Natural Sciences and Its Implications to China

A Nobel Pursuit May Not Run like Clockwork

Places of ‘Invention and Discovery’ and the Nobel Prize in Physics

Genius Cliques: Mapping out the Nobel Network