No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Of Nobel class: a citation perspective on high impact research authors
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to determine if quantitative rankings of highly cited research authors confirm Nobel prize awards. Six studies covering different time periods and author sample sizes were reviewed. The number of Nobel laureates at the time each study was published was tabulated, as was the number of high impact authors who later became laureates. The Nobelists and laureates-to-be were also compared with non-Nobelists to see if they differed in terms of impact and productivity. The results indicate that high rankings by citation frequency identify researchers of Nobel class--that is, a small set of authors that includes a high proportion of actual Nobelists and laureates-to-be. Also, the average impact (citations per author) of Nobelists and laureates-to-be is sufficiently high to distinguish them from non-Nobelists in these rankings. In conclusion, a simple, quantitative, and objective algorithm based on citation data can effectively corroborate--and even forecast--a complex, qualitative, and subjective selection process based on human judgement.
... The number of citations received by an article is widely seen as a surrogate of that article's scientific impact and importance. 1 For instance, if a research article is cited by multiple sources, the article's message is more likely to be disseminated among the scientific community. The dissemination of this knowledge is more likely to influence the evolution of scientific thought and patient care. ...
... In fact, citation rates have been used as criteria for academic promotions and selection of individuals for the Nobel Prize. 1,2 Given the growing importance of citation rates in biomedical research, recent studies in the medical literature have explored the factors that are associated with higher citation rates. Callaham et al. 3 found that the strongest predictor of citations per year was the impact factor of the publishing journal. ...
... We hypothesized that the level of evidence, largely viewed as a proxy for scientific validity, would be predictive of higher citation rates in plastic surgery. Therefore, the aims of this study are the following: (1) identify studies published in 3 major plastic surgery journals; (2) extract a list of scientific and nonscientific study variables that have been previously demonstrated to influence citation rates from articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria; and (3) evaluate whether an association exists between level of evidence (and other scientific and nonscientific variables) and the rate of citation seen 5 years from publication. ...
Background:
The purpose of this study is to determine and characterize the scientific and nonscientific factors that influence the rate of article citation in the field of plastic surgery.
Design:
Cross-sectional study.
Setting:
We reviewed all entries in Annals of Plastic Surgery and Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007; and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008. All scientific articles were analyzed and several article characteristics were extracted. The number of citations at 5 years was collected as the outcome variable. A multivariable analysis was performed to determine which variables were associated with higher citations rates.
Results:
A total of 2456 articles were identified of which only 908 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most studies were publications in the fields of reconstructive (26.3%) or pediatric/craniofacial (17.6%) surgery. The median number of citations 5 years from publication was 8. In the multivariable analysis, factors associated with higher citations rates were subspecialty field (p = 0.0003), disclosed conflict of interest (p = 0.04), number of authors (p = 0.04), and journal (p = 0.02).
Conclusion:
We have found that higher level of evidence (or other study methodology factors) is not associated with higher citation rates. Instead, conflict of interest, subspecialty topic, journal, and number of authors are strong predictors of high citation rates in plastic surgery.
... Indeed, the ideas of Merton and Zuckerman have inspired further scholarship on the Nobel Prizes (e.g., Boettke, Fink, & Smith, 2012;Bjork, Offer, & Söderberg, 2014;Cole, 1970;Diamond, 1988;Karier, 2010). For example, research has shown that the number of awards (Chan, Gleeson, & Torgler, 2014) as well as citation impacts steadily increase ahead of the event (Garfield & Welljams-Dorof, 1992;Mazloumian, Eom, Helbing, Lozano, & Tortunato, 2011). ...
... Further strengthening these concerns for our current application is the fact that the set of Nobel Prize papers is a highly selective and highly cited subgroup which does not follow the typical citation life cycle and usually increases in citation impacts steadily ahead of the event (Garfield & Welljams-Dorof, 1992;Mazloumian et al, 2011). Hence, although a random sample of untreated papers from the WoS would probably suffice to control for general time trends in the citation frequency and for the growth of the global science system, this approach is not suited to adjust for biases due to selection on citation growth. ...
The Matthew effect has become a standard concept in science studies and beyond to describe processes of cumulative advantage. Despite its wide success, a rigorous quantitative analysis for Merton’s original case for Matthew effects – the Nobel Prize – is still missing. This paper aims to fill this gap by exploring the causal effect of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (hereafter the Nobel Prize in Economics). Furthermore, we test another of Merton’s ideas: successful papers can draw attention to cited references leading to a serial diffusion of ideas. Based on the complete Web of Science 1900–2011, we estimate the causal effects of Nobel Prizes compared to a synthetic control group which we constructed by combining different matching techniques. We find clear evidence for a Matthew effect upon citation impacts, especially for papers published within five years before the award. Further, scholars from the focal field of the award are particularly receptive to the award signal. In contrast to that, we find no evidence that the Nobel Prize causes a serial diffusion of ideas. Papers cited by future Nobel laureates do not gain in citation impact after the award.
Peer Review
https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00129
... The Nobel Prize, widely regarded as the most prestigious award in science, offers a unique opportunity to systematically identify and trace many of the world's greatest scientists 1,3,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] . These scientific elites have attracted interest from a wide range of disciplines 1,3,8,11,12,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] , spanning sociology, economics, psychology, and physics. ...
... On the one hand, quantitative studies analyzing publication and citation records have mainly focused on the prize-winning work alone, helping uncover a set of highly reproducible patterns ranging from understanding the link between age and creativity 3,16,17,[28][29][30] , to allocating credits and recognition 4,15,19,21 . On the other hand, Zuckerman's canonical work 1 probes into the entire career histories of Nobel laureates through qualitative methods 13,14,16,[31][32][33][34][35] . The rich patterns articulated by Zuckerman vividly highlight the need to go beyond their prize-winning works, and put them in the context of the entire careers of laureates. ...
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.
... The Nobel Prize, widely regarded as the most prestigious award in science, offers a unique opportunity to systematically identify and trace many of the world's greatest scientists 1,3,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] . These scientific elites have attracted interest from a wide range of disciplines 1,3,8,11,12,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] , spanning sociology, economics, psychology, and physics. ...
... On the one hand, quantitative studies analyzing publication and citation records have mainly focused on the prize-winning work alone, helping uncover a set of highly reproducible patterns ranging from understanding the link between age and creativity 3,16,17,[28][29][30] , to allocating credits and recognition 4,15,19,21 . On the other hand, Zuckerman's canonical work 1 probes into the entire career histories of Nobel laureates through qualitative methods 13,14,16,[31][32][33][34][35] . The rich patterns articulated by Zuckerman vividly highlight the need to go beyond their prize-winning works, and put them in the context of the entire careers of laureates. ...
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 as 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. 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.
... This assumption is violated, for example, if scholars are selected for the Nobel Prize because their publications are cited more frequently than other papers in the field (selection on citation levels). Research shows that such selection on citation levels is a realistic scenario for Nobel Prize laureates (Garfield & Welljams-Dorof, 1992). Similarly, simply looking at the citation growth of such highly cited papers would be misleading, as it ignores the fact that articles would even gain in citations in the counterfactual situation that the honored author hadn't received the prize. ...
... This might be caused by selection on citation growth, extension of citation databases, or general trends in citation data. Particularly, selection on growth is very plausible in case of the Nobel papers: Garfield and Welljams-Dorof (1992) already showed that Nobel Prize winners usually have a steady increase in citations before the event, Mazloumian et al. (2011) find that citation boosts promote Nobel Prizes, and Chan et al. (2014b) report an increasing rate of awards before the Nobel Prize (see also classics by Merton, 1968;Zuckerman, 1977). Hence, a simple comparison of citations before and after the reception of the Nobel Prize likely suffers from bias due to selection on citation growth and probably also from the other problems mentioned above. ...
Bibliometric data are frequently used to study the effects of events, such as the honoring of a scholar with an award, and to investigate changes of citation impact over time. However, the number of yearly citations depends upon time for multiple reasons: a) general time trends in citation data, b) changing coverage of databases, c) individual citation life-cycles, and d) selection on citation impact. Hence, it is often ill-advised to simply compare the average number of citations before and after an event to estimate its causal effect. Using a recent publication in this journal on the potential citation chain reaction of a Nobel Prize, we demonstrate that a simple pre-post comparison can lead to biased and misleading results. We propose using matched control groups to improve causal inference and illustrate that the inclusion of a tailor-made synthetic control group in the statistical analysis helps to avoid methodological artifacts. Our results suggest that there is neither a Nobel Prize effect as regards citation impact of the Nobel laureate under investigation nor a related chain reaction in the citation network, as suggested in the original study. Finally, we explain that these methodological recommendations extend far beyond the study of Nobel Prize effects in citation data.
... No one can nominate her/himself, and the prize can be shared by up to three persons / organizations -however, only two Peace Prizes have been shared by three in more recent years (1994 and 2011). The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations are in the public domain only after fifty years (a secrecy rule); however, it is still hard to obtain analyses and studies from such lists [11][12][13][14][15][16]. ...
... For example, Garfield [11] was one of the first to search bibliometric studies in an effort to clarify the profile of laureates by describing not only candidates but also winners, the former considered as a subset of "Nobel class" scientists. It was found that this set of scientists did not diverge in citation data occurrence from what can be considered as "average" scientist [12] until awarded by a Nobel Prize. ...
We briefly discuss a letter written by physicist of German origin Albert Einstein (1879-1955) to the Norwegian Nobel Committee nominating the Brazilian military officer, geographer, explorer and peacemaker Candido Mariano da Silva Rondon (1865-1958). Einstein nominated other eleven scientists, and all them were Nobel Prizes laureates. We also examine and discuss the Nobel Peace Prize Nominators and Nominees from 1901 to 1964. Just taking into account data up to the year of the Nobel Prize, the highest number of nominations was awarded to an organization, the Permanent International Peace Bureau in 1910, with a total of 103 nominations, followed by two women: Bertha von Suttner (101 nominations, 1905) and Jane Addams (91 nominations, 1931). Data show that the average number of nominations per Nobel Prize awarded was 17.7, and only 18 of the total 62 laureates exceed this average. At the other extreme there were often prizewinners who had just zero, one, two or three nominations-a highly subjective indicator. We also verified that there were at least 25 nominations by National Parliaments, there were determinants for some winners. Considering the results presented, it is possible to affirm that Rondon received sufficient nominations to be awarded the Nobel Prize, even not considering Einstein's letter. Resumo: Discutimos brevemente uma carta escrita pelo físico de origem alemã Albert Einstein (1879-1955) ao Comitê Norueguês do Prêmio Nobel indicando o oficial militar, geógrafo, explorador e pacificador brasileiro Candido Mariano da Silva Rondon (1865-1958). Einstein indicou outros onze cientistas, e todos foram laureados com Prêmios Nobel. Também analisamos e discutimos os Nomeadores e Nomeados ao Prêmio Nobel da Paz desde 1901 até 1964. Apenas tendo em conta os dados até o ano do recebimento do Prêmio Nobel, ´ e notável que o maior número de indicaçindicaç˜indicações foi concedido a uma organizaçorganizaç˜organização, o Gabinete Internacional Permanente para a Paz (Permanent International Peace Bureau) em 1910, com um total de 103 indicaçindicaç˜indicações, seguido por duas mulheres: Bertha von Suttner (101 nomeaçnomeaç˜nomeações, 1905) e Jane Addams (91 indicaçindicaç˜indicações, 1931). Os dados mostraram que o número médio de indicaçindicaç˜indicações por Prêmio Nobel concedido foi de 17,7, e apenas 18 do total de 62 laureados excederam este média. No outro extremo, observou-se frequentemente que em muitos anos CBPF-CS-001/16 27 houve premiados com zero, uma, duas ou três nomeaçnomeaç˜nomeações-um indicador de alta subjetividade. Verificamos também que pelo menos 25 nomeaçnomeaç˜nomeações, feitas por Parlamentos Nacionais, foram determinantes para laurear alguns vencedores. Considerando os resultados apresentados, ´ e possível afirmar que Rondon recebeu indicaçindicaç˜indicações suficientes para ser agraciado com o Prêmio Nobel, mesmo sem considerar a carta de Einstein.
... This base was originally created by Eugene Garfield in 1955(Garfield, 1955 and explained in his papers (Garfield, 1970;Garfield, 1972;Garfield, 2006;Garfield, Sher, 1963;Garfield, Welljams-Dorof, 1992). It was officially launched in 1964, for information about scientific journals in 1963 and included references from 1961 and 1962. ...
... Assessment and evaluation of scientific journals in the framework of SCI-E, SSCI and A&HCI citation databases (CDB) is determined based on the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) or shorter Impact Factor (IF), which is suggested by Eugene Garfield, since 1955(Garfield, 1955. In the papers (Althouse et al., 2009;Egghe, 1988;Garfield, 1970;Garfield, 1972;Garfield, 2006;Garfield, Sher, 1963;Garfield, Welljams-Dorof, 1992) an analysis of JIF is given and in the papers (Fu, Ho, 2015;Ho, 2012Ho, , 2013Ho, , 2014) the top-cited articles in various scientific fields are given. ...
SCI-E and SSCI are one of the main citation databases (CDB) in the world in the field of natural and applied (SCI-E) and social (SSCI) scientific disciplines. In 2014, within the SCIE all scientific fields of natural and applied science disciplines are classified into 176 categories, and within SSCI all scientific fields of social science disciplines are classified into 56 categories. Scientific journals in the field of “Economic Sciences” are sorted within the SSCI in 8 (eight) categories, plus one category within the SCI-E. The aim of the paper is to show the state and analysis of scientific journals indexed in SSCI and SCI-E citation databases (CDB) for 9 (nine) listed categories in the field of “Economic Sciences” for the period 1995-2014. The number of different scientific journals for 9 (nine) listed categories in the field of “Economic Sciences” for a period of 1997-2014, increased for 455 journals (from 415 journals in 1995 to 860 journals in 2014) with cumulative growth index (CGI) of 207,23% compared to 1997. Best ranked category among the nine listed categories in the field of “Economic Sciences” was the category “Economics” (Econ), which according to the number of journals for the entire period 1995-2014 was always ranked first (top-one) within SSCI. The largest increase in the number of scientific journals for the period 1995-2014 for all nine listed categories in the field of “Economic Sciences” had the category “Management” (Manag).
... This base was originally created by Eugene Garfield in 1955(Garfield, 1955 and explained in his papers (Garfield, 1970;Garfield, 1972;Garfield, 2006;Garfield, Sher, 1963;Garfield, Welljams-Dorof, 1992). It was officially launched in 1964, for information about scientific journals in 1963 and included references from 1961 and 1962. ...
... Assessment and evaluation of scientific journals in the framework of SCI-E, SSCI and A&HCI citation databases (CDB) is determined based on the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) or shorter Impact Factor (IF), which is suggested by Eugene Garfield, since 1955(Garfield, 1955. In the papers (Althouse et al., 2009;Egghe, 1988;Garfield, 1970;Garfield, 1972;Garfield, 2006;Garfield, Sher, 1963;Garfield, Welljams-Dorof, 1992) an analysis of JIF is given and in the papers (Fu, Ho, 2015;Ho, 2012Ho, , 2013Ho, , 2014) the top-cited articles in various scientific fields are given. ...
SCI-E and SSCI are one of the main citation databases (CDB) in the world in the field of natural and applied (SCI-E) and social (SSCI) scientific disciplines. In 2014, within the SCI-E all scientific fields of natural and applied science disciplines are classified into 176 categories, and within SSCI all scientific fields of social science disciplines are classified into 56 categories. Scientific journals in the field of “Economic Sciences” are sorted within the SSCI in 8 (eight) categories, plus one category within the SCI-E. The aim of the paper is to show the state and analysis of scientific journals indexed in SSCI and SCI-E citation databases (CDB) for 9 (nine) listed categories in the field of “Economic Sciences” for the period 1995-2014. The number of different scientific journals for 9 (nine) listed categories in the field of “Economic Sciences” for a period of 1997-2014, increased for 455 journals (from 415 journals in 1995 to 860 journals in 2014) with cumulative growth index (CGI) of 207,23% compared to 1997. Best ranked category among the nine listed categories in the field of “Economic Sciences” was the category “Economics” (Econ), which according to the number of journals for the entire period 1995-2014 was always ranked first (top-one) within SSCI. The largest increase in the number of scientific journals for the period 1995-2014 for all nine listed categories in the field of “Economic Sciences” had the category “Management” (Manag).
How to cite this article:
Dašić, P.: State and analysis of scientific journals in the field of "Economic sciences" for the period 1995-2014. Economic Themes, Vol. 53, Issue 4 (2015), pp. 547-581. ISSN 1450-961X. doi: 10.1515/ethemes-2015-0032.
... Ova baza originalno je kreirana od strane Eugene Garfield u 1955. godini (Garfield, 1955 i objašnjena u njegovim radovima (Garfield, 1970;Garfield, 1972;Garfield, 2006;Garfield, Sher, 1963;Garfield, Welljams-Dorof, 1992 ...
... Ocena i vrednovanje naučnih časopisa u okviru SCI-E, SSCI i A&HCI citatnih baza podataka (CDB) određuje se na osnovu impakt faktora časopisa ili kraće impakt faktora (Impact Factor -IF), koji je predložen od strane Eugene Garfield, još 1955(Garfield, 1955. U radovima (Althouse i dr., 2009;Egghe, 1988;Garfield, 1970;Garfield, 1972;Garfield, 2006;Garfield, Sher, 1963;Garfield, Welljams-Dorof, 1992) data je analiza JIF, a u radovima (Fu, Ho, 2015;Ho, 2012Ho, , 2013Ho, , 2014 top-citirani članci za različite naučne oblasti. ...
SCI-E i SSCI su jedne od glavnih citatnih baza podataka (Citation Databases - CDB) u svetu u oblasti prirodnih i primenjenih (SCI-E) i socijalnih (SSCI) naučnih disciplina. Za 2014. godinu, unutar SCI-E sve naučne oblasti prirodnih i primenjenih naučnih disciplina razvrstane su u 176 kategorija, a unutar SSCI sve naučne oblasti socijalnih naučnih disciplina razvrstane su u 56 kategorija. Naučni časopisi u oblasti „Ekonomskih nauka” razvrstani su unutar SSCI u 8 kategorija, plus jedna kategorija unutar SCI-E. Cilj rada je da se prikaže stanje i analiza naučnih časopisa indeksiranih u SSCI i SCI-E citatnim bazama podataka (CDB) za 9 (devet) navedenih kategorija u oblasti „Ekonomskih nauka” za period 1995-2014. Broj različitih naučnih časopisa za 9 (devet) navedenih kategorija u oblasti „Ekonomskih nauka”, za period 1997-2014, povećao se za 445 časopisa (od 415 časopisa u 1997. na 860 časopisa u 2014.) sa indeksom kumulativnog rasta od 207,23 % u odnosu na 1997. Najbolje rangirana kategorija od navedenih devet u oblasti „Ekonomskih nauka” bila je kategorija „Economics” / „Ekonomija” (Econ), koja je prema broju časopisa za ceo period 1995-2014, uvek bila rangirana kao prva (top-jedan) u okviru SSCI. Najveće povećanje broja naučnih časopisa za period 1995-2014. za svih devet navedenih kategorija u oblasti „Ekonomskih nauka” imala je kategorija „Management” / „Menadžment” (Manag).
How to cite this article:
Dašić, P.: Stanje i analiza naučnih časopisa u oblasti "Ekonomskih nauka" za period 1995-2014. Ekonomske teme, Vol. 53, br. 4 (2015), str. 561-595. ISSN 0353-8648.
... Garfield found that Nobel laureates of the 1960s were cited~30 times as often as the average researcher and were authors of multiple citation classics (i.e., documents cited over 300 times); and that the use of a simple technique to identify high rankings by citation and citation/paper was sufficient to corroborate and forecast laureates-in-waiting (Garfield, 1986;Garfield and Welljams-Dorof, 1992)-a claim later disputed by Gingras and Wallace (2010). In a study contemporaneous with Garfield's, Stephan and Levin (1993) analysed the relationship between age and productivity in Nobel laureates from 1901 to 1992. ...
The research agenda on global academic elites (e.g., those awarded the Nobel Prize) has overlooked academic awards and elites from developing countries and the public symbolic recognition of scientific elites by research awards. In this study, we examine the bibliometric features of individual researcher profiles of those participants who received a special mention in Colombia's most prestigious prize in the sciences: the Alejandro Ángel Escobar Prize (AAEP). First, we chart the citation per article trend of Colombia's most prolific researchers before and after receiving the special mention and the AAEP. We then compare the special mention group with those awarded the AAEP, using a composite citation indicator of six scientific impact and productivity indices to estimate (1) bulk impact (number of citations and h index) and (2) authorship order adjusted impact (Schreiber hm index; total citations for articles of which the scientist is the single author; total citations for articles of which the scientist is the single or first author; and total citations for articles of which the scientist is the single, first, or last author). Results show that there is no overall halo effect in citation per article after receiving the special mention or the AAEP. Such recognition comes after an academically productive career marked by multiple citations per article peaks. There is no clear-cut division between the composite citation indicator of those awarded a special mention and those awarded the AAEP. Findings place the profile of local authors in an adjusted and inclusive framework that takes full cognisance of the scientific elites in developing countries.
... A large number of citations may also indicate that researchers rely more on such articles to qualify their methods or legitimize their views [10,11]. Furthermore, an objective algorithm based on citation data of high-impact researchers has been shown to help predict Nobel Prize winners [12,13]. ...
Background: The medical education community is reflecting increasingly on the role and nature of research in the field. Useful sources of data to include in these reflections are a description of the topics in which we are investing our energies, an analysis of the extent to which there is a sense of progress on these topics, and an examination of the mechanisms by which any progress has been achieved. The purpose of the present study was to provide an insight into the highly cited themes of research into medical education.
Methods: This study is a content analysis of highly cited articles in medical education. An in-depth content analysis was conducted, identifying meaning units, which were compacted and coded with labels.
Results: During a variety of topics, methods and strategies, 764 codes, 24 descriptive themes, and 7 categories were extracted from the content analysis as the most prominent. Categories for future medical education research were: Modern technology updating in medical education; Learner performance improving; Sociological aspects of medical education; Clinical reasoning; Research methodology concerns of medical education; Instructional design educational models; and Professional aspects of medical education.
Conclusions: Medical education is in need of moving to a more theory and discovery driven approach and would profit from broadening its scope and reformation that might bring answers to new concerns. An emphasis on creating more systemic knowledge and theoretical models will nurture the generalizable scientific knowledge and will increase the medical education chance to drive the development of research on learning and instruction.
... Garfield found that Nobel laureates of the 1960s were cited~30 times as often as the average researcher and were authors of multiple citation classics (i.e., documents cited over 300 times); and that the use of a simple technique to identify high rankings by citation and citation/paper was sufficient to corroborate and forecast laureates-in-waiting (Garfield, 1986;Garfield and Welljams-Dorof, 1992)-a claim later disputed by Gingras and Wallace (2010). In a study contemporaneous with Garfield's, Stephan and Levin (1993) analysed the relationship between age and productivity in Nobel laureates from 1901 to 1992. ...
The research agenda on global academic elites (e.g., those awarded the Nobel Prize) has overlooked academic awards and elites from developing countries together with those who participate in such competitions, fail to win an award, but receive a special mention instead. In this study, we examine the bibliometric features of individual researcher profiles of those participants who received a special mention in Colombia's most prestigious prize in the sciences: the Alejandro Ángel Escobar Prize (AAEP). First, we chart the citation/paper trend of Colombia's most prolific authors before and after receiving the special mention. We then compare the special mention group with those awarded the AAEP, using the composite indicator (C) of six scientific impact and productivity indices to estimate (1) bulk impact (number of citations and h index) and (2) authorship order adjusted impact (Schreiber hm index; total citations for papers of which the scientist is the single author; total citations for papers of which the scientist is the single or first author; and total citations for papers of which the scientist is the single, first, or last author). According to the authors' output profile, the most multidisciplinary AAEP category was physical and natural sciences, the least: social sciences and humanities. Results show that there is no overall halo effect in citation/paper after receiving the special mention. Such recognition comes after an academically productive career marked by multiple citation/paper peaks. There is no clear-cut division between the C of those awarded a special mention and those awarded the AAEP. Findings place the profile of local authors in an adjusted and inclusive framework that takes full cognisance of the scientific elites in developing countries.
... Originally, such analyses gained prominence through the work of Eugene Garfield, who produced lists of most-cited researchers over the years. In particular, Garfield had an interest in using citation data to forecast Nobel Prize winners by identifying a group of researchers he termed 'of Nobel class' (Garfield & Welljams-Dorof, 1992). ...
Purpose
The ranking lists of highly cited researchers receive much public attention. In common interpretations, highly cited researchers are perceived to have made extraordinary contributions to science. Thus, the metrics of highly cited researchers are often linked to notions of breakthroughs, scientific excellence, and lone geniuses.
Design/methodology/approach
In this study, we analyze a sample of individuals who appear on Clarivate Analytics ’ Highly Cited Researchers list. The main purpose is to juxtapose the characteristics of their research performance against the claim that the list captures a small fraction of the researcher population that contributes disproportionately to extending the frontier and gaining—on behalf of society—knowledge and innovations that make the world healthier, richer, sustainable, and more secure.
Findings
The study reveals that the highly cited articles of the selected individuals generally have a very large number of authors. Thus, these papers seldom represent individual contributions but rather are the result of large collective research efforts conducted in research consortia. This challenges the common perception of highly cited researchers as individual geniuses who can be singled out for their extraordinary contributions. Moreover, the study indicates that a few of the individuals have not even contributed to highly cited original research but rather to reviews or clinical guidelines. Finally, the large number of authors of the papers implies that the ranking list is very sensitive to the specific method used for allocating papers and citations to individuals. In the “whole count” methodology applied by Clarivate Analytics , each author gets full credit of the papers regardless of the number of additional co-authors. The study shows that the ranking list would look very different using an alternative fractionalised methodology.
Research limitations
The study is based on a limited part of the total population of highly cited researchers.
Practical implications
It is concluded that “excellence” understood as highly cited encompasses very different types of research and researchers of which many do not fit with dominant preconceptions.
Originality/value
The study develops further knowledge on highly cited researchers, addressing questions such as who becomes highly cited and the type of research that benefits by defining excellence in terms of citation scores and specific counting methods.
... Barbosa (2003, p. 22) ainda considera a meritocracia como um "conjunto de valores que rejeita toda e qualquer forma de privilégio hereditário e corporativo e que valoriza e avalia as pessoas independentemente de suas trajetórias e biografias sociais". Dessa forma, o avanço e reconhecimento social são itens adquiridos a partir do mérito individual, buscando atender as perspectivas das pessoas e das organizações, sendo analisadas por regras preestabelecidas (BARBOSA, 2003 1974e 197519982007Ertl, Gerhard 1990e 200320082008Shimomura, Osamu 1962, 1974e 20002009Chalfie, Martin 1985, 1988e 1994Tsien, Roger Yonchien 1982, 198420062009 Ramakrishnan 1968, 1972e 19742011Negishi, Ei-chi 1977, 1980e 19952011Suzuki, Akira 1998e 200320102011Shechtman, Daniel 1975, 1984, 19862014e 20152012Lefkowitz, Robert Joseph 1980,1986e 1993Kobilka, Brian Kent 1986e 20072011Karplus, Martin 1959, 1983e 19982011Levitt, Michael 1976e 19892014Warshel, Arieh 1976e 200620112014Betzig, Eric 1991, 1992e 20062018Hell, Stefan Walter 1994, 2000e 20072015Moerner, William Esco 1997e 200920152015Lindahl, Tomas Robert 1972, 1993e 19992012Modrich, Paul Lawrence 1991, 1993e 19962003e 2016Sancar, Aziz 1979, 1996e 20042017 Fonte: Web of Science ( Conforme Miranda (1996), os cientistas mais produtivos recebem prestígio e reconhecimento pelos seus pares. Publicar em periódicos reconhecidos internacionalmente, organizados em bases de dados de renome, como a WoS, expressa algo importante além de sua legitimação como cientista: assegura a propriedade e prioridade do objeto de estudo, isto é, favorece para que o pesquisador obtenha destaque na comunidade de acordo com sua produção científica que alcançou um maior índice de citação. ...
Objetivo: Analisa a influência nos índices de citação por parte dos pesquisadores que foram contemplados pelo prêmio Nobel nas áreas da Física e Química no período de 2005 a 2015. Investiga a relação entre ser contemplado com o Prêmio Nobel e o aumento nos índices de citação dos pesquisadores ganhadores do prêmio. Para tanto buscou: a) caracterizar o processo de avaliação de desempenho da premiação Nobel e os índices de citação; b) apresentar os índices de citação dos ganhadores do Nobel; c) identificar se os índices de citação são influenciados pelo prêmio Nobel..
Método: Realiza uma pesquisa exploratória e estudo comparativo, tendo como base os estudos de citação para análise e discussão dos dados coletados.
Resultados: A premiação Nobel apresenta indícios de influência nos índices de citação dos pesquisadores nas áreas estudadas. Considera que o levantamento das informações teve a finalidade de compreender essa dinâmica na ciência que proporcionou dados sobre a produção científica e pesquisadores através de uma premiação Nobel que tem importância e que coopera para o avanço do saber.
Conclusões: As bases Web of Science e Scopus apontam que os pesquisados da área de Física, após serem contemplados com o NOBEL, aumentaram os picos de citação. Porém, na área de Química, na Scopus não é perceptível a influência do prêmio, pois os picos de citação dos pesquisadores antecedem a premiação. Na área de Física, em sua maioria, nota-se o reconhecimento científico pós-premiação por meio dos índices de citação, podendo dizer que a partir da amostra coletada houve relação do Nobel com os índices de citação dos pesquisadores, revelando a visibilidade dos cientistas para a comunidade científica.
... Highly cited articles nevertheless provide an interesting and useful insight into which authors, articles, and topics are influencing the profession over time [43]. It is believed that Nobel Prize winners are consistently highly cited while only a small percentage of mostcited authors win the prize [44]. Table 4 Highly cited articles may not always be in high impact positions [15]. ...
This study aimed to identify and analyze the characteristics of highly cited articles in phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) research using the Science Citation Index Expanded from 1900 to 2016. Altogether 1,922 highly cited papers in seven document types with cited at least 100 times since publication to the end of 2016 from Web of Science Core Collection were found, and a total of 1,556 highly cited articles were published from 1990 to 2014. The articles were analysed in terms of document type, language of publication, trends in publication, journals, Web of Science categories, and publications of countries, institutions, and authors. The results showed that Journal of Biological Chemistry led 211 journals. The top three categories were biochemistry and molecular biology, cell biology, and oncology. The USA took the lead position among 43 countries with 67% of all the highly cited articles, and Harvard University of the USA with 14% of all highly cited articles was the most productive institution. A comprehensive analysis of keywords revealed that activation, pathway, Akt, and apoptosis were recent foci. In addition, classic articles with more than 1,000 citations since publication to the end of 2016 are also discussed.
... According to his famous will of 1895, Nobel s fortune was to be used to establish the Nobel Prizes for sciences (Chemistry, Physics and Medicine or Physiology), apart from that of Literature and Peace (Sohlman andSchuck, 1929 Sri Kantha, 1999). These prizes were first bestowed in 1901 and announcement of these prizes in October still continue to be a news-worthy annual event for their merit and glamor (Sohlman, 1983;Garfield and Welljams-Dorof, 1992;Feldman, 2000;Levinovitz and Ringertz, 2001). ...
The Nobel Prizes awarded in two appropriate science categories (chemistry as well as physiology or medicine) and the peace category since 1901 were studied to evaluate the plant science related research that had received recognition. We also checked the Nobel prize nomination database for the two appropriate science categories to verify the number of scientists (with research reputation on plant-based studies) who were nominated, but were unlucky in the eventual selection process. The focus of this review is research on plant materials in a wider sense (including that of photosynthetic bacteria), that received Nobel prize recognition. Until 2017, Nobel Prizes for research in plant sciences have been awarded 17 times to 20 scientists. Pioneering work on five major research themes, namely, (1) chlorophyll and photosynthesis, (2) elucidation of the structure of vitamins (carotene, thiamin, ascorbic acid and vitamin K), (3) use of radioisotopes for metabolism studies, (4) plant natural product chemistry and (5) plant genetics had received Nobel award recognition so far. For future recognition, Nobel laureates such as Melvin Calvin and Barbara McClintock had opined the worth of interdisciplinary teams with expertise in botany for trend-setting new discoveries in plant science research. We predict that pioneering studies along the line of plants that can grow in a dessert or sea, plants which can be an enriched source of fuel and hydrocarbon-like materials may have potential to be considered for a Nobel Prize for plant science research.
... As the research works of Nobel Prize winners contribute to the emergence of new original scientific ideas, as a rule, their publications are cited much more often than the publications of average researchers. Based on data on the number of citations of scholarly research publications, Eugene Garfield has identified highly cited researchers as "Nobel level" researchers, i.e. those who are likely to receive the Nobel Prize [4]. ...
The Nobel Prize is awarded annually for outstanding scientific discoveries and inventions. Most scientific papers today are co-authored by a large number of researchers. However, very few scientists can receive the Nobel Prize according to the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation. An analysis of the co-authorship of the Nobel laureates will make it possible to identify employees of Ukrainian institutions who have collaborated with leading scientists of the world, whose scientific works were noted by Nobel. For the development of science in Ukraine it is important to study the successful experience of cooperation of domestic research institutions with leading world scientists and research centers, because international scientific collaboration facilitates the process of acquiring new knowledge, promotes mutual enrichment of ideas, efficient use of resources and expands opportunities for further use of research results. Using the Scopus database, selected publications of Nobel Prize winners, which were written in collaboration with scientists who worked in Ukrainian institutions. The data obtained indicate that the employees of scientific institutions of Ukraine published very few papers in collaborations with Nobel Prize winners of 1994-2018 in comparison with employees of institutions in leading countries in publishing activity.
... Therefore, citations have been widely used and valued to provide indices and impact indicators in science 2 . Garfield and Welljams-Dorof 3 have identified a significant correlation between the quality and relevance of an article and the number of citations it receives. ...
Objective:
To describe the most-cited articles in public health scientific journals edited in Brazil.
Methods:
Articles published between 2008 and 2010 by public health journals edited in Brazil and indexed in the Scopus database were included, and citations received up to five years after publication were ranked. We studied a total of 105 articles, as the last seven articles shared the same number of citations and so were given the same rank.
Results:
The most-cited articles received a median of 28 citations, and the distribution ranged from 22 to 95 citations. These articles describe advances in the areas of Epidemiology (74%), Health Policies, Planning and Administration (19%), and Social and Human Sciences in Health (7%). Only half mentioned that they have received funding. About 75% of the articles were written by three or more authors and 90%, by authors affiliated to public institutions such as universities and government organizations. Fifteen individuals were responsible for authoring or coauthoring three or more of the 105 articles studied. The journals Cadernos de Saúde Pública, Revista de Saúde Pública, and Ciência & Saúde Coletiva have published the vast majority of the most-cited articles in the area (94%).
Conclusions:
In Brazil, the most-cited articles in public health mainly report Epidemiology research, are written by groups of authors and by researchers affiliated to public institutions and are published in journals with a greater impact. Periodical analyses of these data can show potential changes in the characteristics of articles that most attract public health scientists.
... Key words Nobel Prize articles, Disruptive paper, Paradigm, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary 引言 科学是科学家从事的一种"解谜"活动，其发展离不开研究者利用已有知识、技 术、方法和工具来解决所面临的问题 [1][2][3][4][5] 。在解决问题过程中，他们主要面临着二种不同的 问题解决策略 [6] ：(1)传统型研究策略。选择该策略的科学家在既有研究范式下从事解谜 活动，通过提高研究精度和深度来积累知识，促进科学发展。他们的研究成果容易被学术 共同体接受，且成果发表后往往在短时间内就获得同行引用。(2)创新型研究策略。选择 该策略的科学家不拘泥于科研传统，失败的风险较高且成果容易遭受质疑，而一旦发表， 往往能在较长时间内持续获得同行认可，成功解决困扰科学界多年的问题，开辟科学研究 新范式，因此其研究成果最具有革命性。 革命性成果代表了人类科学研究的最新成就和最高水平，改变了本学科领域甚至整个 科学的发展方向，最大限度促进了人类进步和福祉。在学术网络中，革命性成果产生的影 响可以通过论文间的引用关系来追踪 [7][8][9] 。诺贝尔奖(下文简称"诺奖")是科学界的最高奖 励，众多学者将诺奖论文视为最具革命性的论文对其引文演化进行了研究 [10][11][12] 。Wu 等 [13] 比较了诺奖论文与非诺奖论文的引文模式，认为革命性论文(Disruptive paper)能够打破某 一领域的研究现状，将科学家注意力从过去的研究中转移到该论文上来，并采用革命性指 数(即革命性论文的直接引文在引用革命性论文参考文献的全部论文中所占的比例)来衡 量论文的革命性。Hu 等 [14,15] [16,17] 。当今科学 已成为高度组织化的社会性事业，它的发展离不开科学家的活动 [18,19] 。科学家通过不同方 式组织利用已有知识来产生新知识，而今天的新知识又会被后来的科学家通过不同的方式 加以组织利用，再次产生新知识，从而推动科学发展 [5,20] 。正如牛顿所言："如果说我看得 比别人更远些，那是因为我站在巨人肩膀上"。在对已有知识组织利用的过程中，不同科学 家解决研究问题的方式不同，关于其影响因素 Kuhn 认为是由科研人员传统性思维与创造 性思维之间的张力决定的，传统性思维是在学术共同体共同遵循的范式下从事研究工作， 在这种范式下，他们容易产生较为丰厚的成果；而创造性思维则是开放的、革命性的，传 统性思维的发展最终会要求新技术、新方法的产生，从而为创造性思维铺平道路，推动革 命的到来 [21] 。与 Kuhn 不同，Bourdieu 认为科学场是一个充满竞争的领域，科学家面临着 "继承"和"颠覆"的选择，这是由科学家所受教育、科研经验以及他人科研方式影响的，而 且即便是选择"继承"的科学家，在其科学研究中也存在着再创新的过程，通过对原有问题 的持续研究，以增强其学术资本。与此同时，科学家还可以担任新职位，来颠覆传统，获 得认可 [22,23] 。基于上述理论，Foster JG 等 [6] 从复杂网络的角度进一步将科学家的研究策略 分为跳跃、搭桥、巩固、持续巩固、持续搭桥五种类型，其中前三种类型对应不同的创新 程度，后两种类型对应不同的保守程度，并以 Medline 数据库收录的生物医学领域的论文 为研究对象，对该领域科学家的研究策略进行了研究，发现该领域的颠覆性(革命性)创 新较少，保守的研究较多。 革命性成果并不常见，而一旦出现则能够改变科学研究的方法、实验对象以及结果呈 现方式，并传播到其它学科领域 [16] 。引文网络不仅是论文间的引用与被引用关系，还反映 了论文所属学科与其它相邻学科对该论文的反应，众多学者基于引文网络，借鉴创新扩散 理论、流行病模型等对革命性成果的传播过程进行了研究 [24][25][26][27] 。Zhai 等 [20] [7,35] , 因此,很多研究者高度关注新发表的论文 [36] 。本部分对不同变化类型论文的参考文 献时间分布进行了分析， 结果发现不同变化类型论文的参考文献时间分布基本一致 (图 6) 。 ...
[目的/意义]革命性论文能够打破某一领域研究现状，促进研究范式的转移。有学者认为革命性论文超出了当前人们的认知范畴，需要经过较长时间才能被认可，并建议基于文献计量学指标的科研评价从更长时间窗口考察论文。这有利于对论文的革命性做出客观、科学的评价，却不利于追踪研究前沿和及时评价研究人员的工作。[方法/过程]本文以诺奖论文为例，对革命性论文学科扩散的早期特征与影响因素进行了研究，采用学科组合系数对1900-2017年生物医学领域的诺奖论文（革命性论文）与非诺奖论文（常规论文）进行比较，分析了两组论文发表后5年内的学科组合系数大小，并从团队规模、参考文献量、参考文献新旧三个方面对该系数的影响因素进行了分析。[结果/结论]研究发现：70%以上的革命性论文自发表后第2年其学科组合系数高于常规论文，这对追踪研究前沿、制定政府资助政策以及研究人员的评价具有重要启示。团队规模和参考文献量是影响该系数的因素，有待进一步探讨。
... Moreover, Nobel Laurates, who presumably have contributed to research of extraordinary high originality and novelty, tend to be more highly cited than the average scientists (Gingras & Wallace, 2010;Wagner, Horlings, Whetsell, Mattsson, & Nordqvist, 2015), and many have published so-called "citation classics." Based on such observations, Garfield previously explored the pos- sibility for using citation statistics to predict future winners (Garfield & Welljams-Dorof, 1992). At the same time, high citation counts do not necessarily imply breakthrough or Nobel class research. ...
Citations are increasingly used as performance indicators in research policy and within the research system. Usually, citations are assumed to reflect the impact of the research or its quality. What is the justification for these assumptions and how do citations relate to research quality? These and similar issues have been addressed through several decades of scientometric research. This article provides an overview of some of the main issues at stake, including theories of citation and the interpretation and validity of citations as performance measures. Research quality is a multidimensional concept, where plausibility/soundness, originality, scientific value, and societal value commonly are perceived as key characteristics. The
article investigates how citations may relate to these various research quality dimensions. It is argued that citations reflect aspects related to scientific impact and relevance, although with important limitations. On the contrary, there is no evidence that citations reflect other key dimensions of research quality. Hence, an increased use of citation indicators in research evaluation and funding may imply less attention to these other research quality dimensions, such as solidity/plausibility, originality, and societal value.
... Lists of researchers identified by high citation counts to their corpus of work became a feature of ISI's Current Contents. By 1968 Garfield (see Garfield and Welljams-Dorof 1992) could report optimistically on the prediction of Nobel Prize winners using citation analysis and other factors, strengthening the notion that outstanding research performance could be identified by citation analysis. Current Contents generated an abundance of lists of productive researchers across many time windows and within many disciplines (e.g. ...
Highly cited researchers are a category of researchers defined by scientometric rules relating to counts of citations to their scholarly articles. The designation often refers to researchers identified according to scientometric rules specified by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) and its commercial affiliates; we denote these categories as HCR. The 2001 ISI rules (HRC.1) used membership thresholds derived from the total citation counts to an author’s corpus in a specified research field and time window. The modified 2013 rules also include counts of individual highly cited publications (HCR.2), while the foreshadowed 2018 rules introduce the concept of cross-field influence (HCR.3). The HCR category is a popular, albeit flawed, indicator of outstanding individual researchers. HCR membership has been used as the basis for many studies of research excellence, including the use of an institution’s HCR count as an indicator in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). The paper traces the development of the HCR category and its use by ARWU, providing insights into the social construction of research indicators and their potential to change research practice.
... The citation rate of a research published article is a main indicator of the quality and impact of its findings, and journal impact factor is essentially determined by the amount of citations received by the articles published in that journal. 7,21 Citation rates may also affect academic institutions by influencing institutional ranking, recruitment of researchers, and funding decisions. 2,20 Therefore, the citation rate of a study is a more accurate predictor of study impact beyond journal acceptance. ...
Background::
The citation rate of a research published article is an indicator of its quality and impact and contributes to the journal's impact factor. Within the orthopaedic sports medicine literature, predictors of citation rates have not been previously described.
Purpose::
To identify characteristics of published articles that predict 5-year citation rates of studies in the orthopaedic sports medicine literature.
Study design::
Cross-sectional study.
Methods::
Research articles published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA) from 2012 were analyzed. Extracted characteristics of published articles included journal, author number, origin of study, first author degree, subject of study, study type, sample size, number of references and institutions, conflicts of interest, level of evidence, and 5-year citation rates. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of greater than the mean number of citations at 5 years.
Results::
A total of 825 published articles ( AJSM, n = 313; Arthroscopy, n = 173; KSSTA, n = 339) were included in the final analysis. The mean number of 5-year citations was 23.2 (95% CI, 21.6-24.9; range, 1.0-260.0). AJSM had a significantly greater citation rate (32.4) than Arthroscopy (21.7) and KSSTA (15.2) ( P < .001 for both). Arthroscopy had a greater citation rate than KSSTA ( P = .008). Independent predictors of greater than the mean number of citations at 5 years were published articles in AJSM (odds ratio [OR], 5.17; 95% CI, 2.81-9.52; P < .0001), published articles of North American origin (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.25-2.58; P = .002), and published articles regarding the hip (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.08-6.67; P = .035).
Conclusion::
Published articles in AJSM, those from North America, and those examining the hip were independent predictors of greater citation rates at 5 years.
... A high h-index by itself does not guarantee admission to this club-many biomedical scientists have an h-index comparable to their Nobelwinning colleagues. 27 There are a few Nobel Prize winners whose h-index is well below the mean of their peers. These scientists made breakthrough contributions that were presented in a limited number of highly cited papers. ...
Objectives:
To describe the h-index as a measure of scientific output.
Methods:
The formula for this index is based on (1) the number of papers published by an author and (2) the number of citations per paper. The h-index can be used to evaluate performance by individuals or by groups of scientists working in university departments or research institutes.
Results:
While the h-index is both objective and quantitative, it has some deficiencies. It does not take into account first or last author publications, numbers of coauthors, or self-citations. Numerous alternative indices have been proposed to better reflect scientists' contributions in their fields.
Conclusions:
Pathologists and clinical laboratory scientists should be familiar with the h-index, as it may be used in decisions about professional advancement.
... This information became available in Sweden at about 11:30 am on the day the prize announcement was made. This meant it was 5:30 am in Philadelphia, so when David arrived at his office he had all the information he needed to write a news story about the latest winners of the Nobel Prize and their accomplishments [26]. The development of the INTERNET, the pedagogic and educational Nobel Foundation Website, and e-mail communications ended this collaboration. ...
... According to his famous will of 1895, Nobel s fortune was to be used to establish the Nobel Prizes for sciences (Chemistry, Physics and Medicine or Physiology), apart from that of Literature and Peace (Sohlman andSchuck, 1929 Sri Kantha, 1999). These prizes were first bestowed in 1901 and announcement of these prizes in October still continue to be a news-worthy annual event for their merit and glamor (Sohlman, 1983;Garfield and Welljams-Dorof, 1992;Feldman, 2000;Levinovitz and Ringertz, 2001). ...
The Nobel Prizes awarded in two appropriate science categories (chemistry as well as physiology or medicine) and the peace category since 1901 were studied to evaluate the plant science related research that had received recognition. We also checked the Nobel prize nomination database for the two appropriate science categories to verify the number of scientists (with research reputation on plant-based studies) who were nominated, but were unlucky in the eventual selection process. The focus of this review is research on plant materials in a wider sense (including that of photosynthetic bacteria), that received Nobel prize recognition. Until 2017, Nobel Prizes for research in plant sciences have been awarded 17 times to 20 scientists. Pioneering work on five major research themes, namely, (1) chlorophyll and photosynthesis, (2) elucidation of the structure of vitamins (carotene, thiamin, ascorbic acid and vitamin K), (3) use of radioisotopes for metabolism studies, (4) plant natural product chemistry and (5) plant genetics had received Nobel award recognition so far. For future recognition, Nobel laureates such as Melvin Calvin and Barbara McClintock had opined the worth of interdisciplinary teams with expertise in botany for trend-setting new discoveries in plant science research. We predict that pioneering studies along the line of plants that can grow in a dessert or sea, plants which can be an enriched source of fuel and hydrocarbon-like materials may have potential to be considered for a Nobel Prize for plant science research.
... A direct connection between citations, reputation, and reciprocal behavior from the community is the example of the Nobel Prize, the most important award in physics, medicine, chemistry, and economics. A scientist's citation count is a crucial predictor of the next laureate (Garfield, 1986;Garfield and Welljams-Dorof, 1992). Reputation in science is also explicit. ...
This paper investigates the manipulation of reputation in the context of innovation and knowledge exchange communities. Reputation is crucial for overcoming the free-riding problem and enables community members to be rewarded because their contributions to the common good can be measured. However, the concept of reputation can include the notion of manipulation, which we define as the attempt to change one's reputation without contributing to the community. To investigate the topic of reputation manipulation, we build on the concept of reputation-based reward systems and extend it by distinguishing between implicit reputation, which is uncodified, and explicit reputation, which is codified and centrally counted. We argue that the possibilities for manipulation differ between these two distinctions. We investigate reputation manipulation empirically in the context of science, which is built on an explicit reputation-based reward system, and we use the received citations as an indicator for reputation. We distinguish two forms of manipulation—unjustified self-citing and unjustified reciprocal citing—and find evidence of both within a bibliometric dataset. This paper contributes to the design of knowledge exchange communities by highlighting the opportunities and challenges arising from explicit reputation-based reward systems, specifically the opportunities for manipulation. It also contributes to the work on misconduct in science.
... For each search word, the re-of high-impact research authors has been shown to help predict Nobel Prize winners. 7,8 Problem-based learning (PBL) has been widely used in dental, medical, nursing, and allied health professions since its introduction at McMaster University in the 1960s. In these areas of professional education, PBL is considered a highly important innovation in teaching and learning and has been widely researched and compared to traditional teaching. ...
The aims of this study were to identify characteristics of the top-cited articles in problem-based learning (PBL) and assess the quality of evidence provided by these articles. The most frequently cited articles on PBL were searched in April 2015 in the Science Citation Index Expanded database (List A) and Google Scholar database (List B). Eligible articles identified were reviewed for key characteristics. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines were used in assessing the level of evidence. The number of citations varied (62 to 923 on List A and 218 to 2,859 on List B). Countries that contributed the majority of articles in both lists were the United States, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Canada. No significant correlations were found between number of citations and number of years since published (p=0.451), number of authors (p=0.144), females in authorship (p=0.189), non-medical authors (p=0.869), number of institutions (p=0.452), and number of grants (p=0.143), but a strong correlation was found with number of countries involved (p=0.007). Application of the Oxford hierarchy of evidence showed that 36 articles were at levels 4 and 5 of evidence. This study found that research articles represented approximately one-third of PBL articles assessed and reported mainly on questionnaire-based studies. The most highly cited articles occupied top-ranking positions in the journals in which they were published. The lower level of evidence observed in most top-cited articles may reflect the significance of innovative ideas or content of these articles. These findings have implications for dental educators and dental researchers.
... At the University of Utah, a weekly conference was instituted to help prepare residents for the In-service and board examination in hopes of improving scores. 1,2 MATeRiAls AnD MeTHoDs: A weekly 90 minute review conference was initiated in 2014 at the University of Utah. Residents along with a member of the faculty reviewed old In-service exam questions and discussed the selected topics in depth. ...
... He reported that eight Nobel laureates were found on a list of 100 most cited authors from 1981 through 1990 (Garfield & Welljamsdorof, 1992). Others on the list were seen as potential Nobel Prize winners in the future. ...
Creative thinking in a broad range of scientific discoveries is similar to food foraging. A food forager uses creative processes when finding the next patch of food. Decisions made for optimal foraging need to take into account the uncertainties and risks of the investment of time, energy, and other resources and the expected gains. If foragers have a vast number of alternatives to consider but only a tiny chance of finding anything useful, then the foragers are alert to scents, signs, and other types of cues to avoid an unproductive search. A scientist, as a forager and creator of new knowledge, faces similar challenges of finding patches of ideas, theories, and evidence in scientific inquires. Since scientific breakthroughs, or transformative discoveries, are truly novel in creating a new way of thinking, these involve the identification of patches of knowledge that are often either remote from the state of the art or non-existent. Notable examples of this include searching for earth-like planets in the Universe, searching for satisfactory compounds in chemical space for drug discovery, or searching for new ideas that may revolutionize a field or lead to the birth of a new field.
... In fact, some of the merit of these indicators and related issues have been the subject of publications from the American Physiological Society (4,7,27,32) and from other journals (11,15,16,20,24). Interestingly, there is a relationship between winning a Nobel Prize and the researcher's citation data (12); being a laureate as well brings an almost immediate citation data boost (18). ...
Several indicators have been used to analyze scientific journals, with the impact factor and the number of citations in a 2-yr calendar time frame (2-YRC) being the most common factors. However, considering that the Journal of Applied Physiology (JAPPL) appears monthly and that calculations of these indicators are based on citations of papers published in previous years, we hypothesized that articles published at the beginning of the year would be cited more in the 2-YRC compared with those appearing in the last issues of the year, a phenomena known as a relative age effect. Our objective was to confirm the existence of a relative age effect in the 2-YRC for original articles published in JAPPL. From 2005 to 2008, a total of 1,726 original articles were published, according to the Web of Science, and 9,973 citations in 2-YRC, varying from 0 to 45, with a mean of 5.78 for individual papers. Although there were no differences in the number of original articles published in a given month (P = 0.99), the 2-YRC varied considerably throughout the year, being higher for those earlier issues of the year, as shown by the linear regression analysis (r(2) = 0.76; P < 0.001). The 2-YRC began at 6.62 during the first 3 mo of the year, dropping by 10% at each 3-mo period. In summary, the longer an article has been out there, the more citations it collects. The relative age effect is a potential confounding variable for the assessment and interpretation of 2-YRC (using calendar years) from JAPPL original articles.
... Ever since Eugene Garfield 4 proposed a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas in 1955, citations are being used regularly to delineate developments in any research field. It was underlined that it is more remarkable because citation-based system is a quantitative and objective algorithm that does not rely on subjective or qualitative enhancements 5 . ...
... Similarly, research to predict recipients of prestigious research awards has relied on data from late in a researcher's career. Garfield and Welljams-Dorof (1992) found that high ranking of an author by number of citations in a specific field is positively correlated with receiving Nobel Prizes. In Acuna et al. (2012), the authors present a model that attains high-quality predictions of future academic results for young life scientists. ...
Tenure decisions, key decisions in academic institutions, are primarily based on subjective assessments of candidates. Using a large-scale bibliometric database containing 198,310 papers published 1975-2012 in the field of operations research (OR), we propose prediction models of whether a scholar would perform well on a number of future success metrics using statistical models trained with data from the scholar's first five years of publication, a subset of the information available to tenure committees. These models, which use network centrality of the citation network, coauthorship network, and a dual network combining the two, significantly outperform simple predictive models based on citation counts alone. Using a data set of the 54 scholars who obtained a Ph. D. after 1995 and held an assistant professorship at a top-10 OR program in 2003 or earlier, these statistical models, using data up to five years after the scholar became an assistant professor and constrained to tenure the same number of candidates as tenure committees did, made a different decision than the tenure committees for 16 (30%) of the candidates. This resulted in a set of scholars with significantly better future A-journal paper counts, citation counts, and h-indexes than the scholars actually selected by tenure committees. These results show that analytics can complement the tenure decision-making process in academia and improve the prediction of academic impact.
In modern science, interdisciplinary and collaborative research is encouraged among scientists to solve complex problems. However, when the time comes to measure an individual’s academic productivity, collaborative efforts are hard to conceptualize and quantify. In this study, we hypothesized that a social behavior coined “scientific civility”, which encompasses civility, collaboration, cooperation, or a combination of these, enhances an individual’s productivity influencing their academic performance. To facilitate recognition of this unique attribute within the scientific environment, we developed a new indicator: the C score. We examined publicly available data from 579 academic scientists at the individual-level, focusing on their scholarly output and collaborative networks as a function of geographic distribution and time. Our findings demonstrate that the C score gauges academic performance from an integral perspective based on a synergistic interaction between productivity and collaborative networks, prevailing over institutionally limited economic resources and minimizing inequalities related to the length of individual’s academic career, field of investigation, and gender.
Significance Statement
The increased connectivity between fields and specialties of science is undeniable. We propose a new indicator, the C score, to assess the value of collaborative efforts and research output to a scientist’s academic performance. This indicator reflects collaborative and interdisciplinary efforts and provides a measure of “scientific civility” and teamwork. The C score can be used as a decision-making tool to track career advancement within the academic environment. Along with other indicators such as the h index, the C score supports a more integrative and holistic assessment of an individual’s academic performance.
The top 1 percent most highly cited articles are watched closely as the vanguards of the sciences. Using Web of Science data, one can find that China had overtaken the USA in the relative participation in the top 1 percent in 2019, after outcompeting the EU on this indicator in 2015. However, this finding contrasts with repeated reports of Western agencies that the quality of Chinese output in science is lagging other advanced nations, even as it has caught up in numbers of articles. The difference between the results presented here and the previous results depends mainly upon field normalizations, which classify source journals by discipline. Average citation rates of these subsets are commonly used as a baseline so that one can compare among disciplines. However, the expected value of the top 1 percent of a sample of N papers is N 100, ceteris paribus. Using the average citation rates as expected values, errors are introduced by using the mean of highly skewed distributions and a specious precision in the delineations of the subsets. Classifications can be used for the decomposition, but not for the normalization. When the data is thus decomposed, the USA ranks ahead of China in biomedical fields such as virology. Although the number of papers is smaller, China outperforms the US in the field of Business and Finance in the Social Sciences Citation Index when p is less than .05. Using percentile ranks, subsets other than indexing based classifications can be tested for the statistical significance of differences among them.
The top-1% most-highly-cited articles are watched closely as the vanguards of the sciences. Using Web of Sciencee data, one can find that China had overtaken the USA in the relative participation in the top-1% (PP-top1%) in 2019, after outcompeting the EU on this indicator in 2015. However, this finding contrasts with repeated reports of Western agencies that the quality of China's output in science is lagging other advanced nations, even as it has caught up in numbers of articles. The difference between the results presented here and the previous results depends mainly upon field normalizations, which classify source journals by discipline. Average citation rates of these subsets are commonly used as a baseline so that one can compare among disciplines. However, the expected value of the top-1% of a sample of N papers is N / 100, ceteris paribus. Using the average citation rates as expected values, errors are introduced by (1) using the mean of highly skewed distributions and (2) a specious precision in the delineations of the subsets. Classifications can be used for the decomposition, but not for the normalization. When the data is thus decomposed, the USA ranks ahead of China in biomedical fields such as virology. Although the number of papers is smaller, China outperforms the US in the field of Business and Finance (in the Social Sciences Citation Index; p<.05). Using percentile ranks, subsets other than indexing-based classifications can be tested for the statistical significance of differences among them.
A well established agenda on the research output, impact, and structure of global scientific elites such as Nobel Prize laureates has generated interest in the scientific elites from developing countries. This study deploys science mapping techniques to provide a comprehensive analysis of the output, impact, and structure of the Colombian scientific elite, i.e., researchers awarded with the Alejandro Angel Escobar Foundation National Prize 1990 2020, known locally as the Colombian Nobel. Findings showed that the Colombian scientific elite has a broader agenda than indexing titles in internationally renowned bibliographic databases. The Colombian scientific elite also showed positive growth, which is an inverse trend compared with Nobel laureate productivity. There were no noticeable changes in productivity and impact before and after receiving the prize. Institutional collaboration within the Colombian scientific elite displayed the highest betweenness (brokerage) role of world and local top-tier universities. However, only two Colombian scientific elite members published an article with two Nobel Prize laureates. Most of the research profiles reflected the national output priorities, but were found to diverge from the national focus in respect of strategic research capacities. This study also conducted a productivity and impact comparison with Nobel Prize laureates in science and economics by means of a stratified random sample 1990-2020 via the composite indicator proposed by Ioannidis et al. The interleaving of the Colombian scientific elite and Nobel Prize laureates, particularly between the 3rd and 2nd quartiles, enabled a more nuanced analysis of the local impact in the global scientific landscape.
The bibliography of this paper is provably the most unspeakable, out of fashion, no longer necessary or relevant set of references ever published in a sociology journal. They are not the least cited, but the most forgotten. These books and articles were at one point quite famous among publishing sociologists but have since suffered near-complete extinction. The explanations of these famous works’ unlikely demise reflect the mechanisms and history of the maintenance and change of the discipline, such as obliteration by incorporation, topical and epistemological shifts in the field, founder-selection, the effects of reputation entrepreneurship, and the shifting of what is intellectually unspeakable. I give this index of the forgotten some face-validity by reviewing exegetical work on “forgotten” sociologists and by conducting qualitative analysis (autopsies) of the biggest falls in conversation with the history of sociology and the sociology of science. Finally, I provide an online tool for further investigation into events in sociology’s citation history.
Purpose:
We classified the articles published in the journal Hip & Pelvis and analyzed the relationship between study characteristics and citation rates.
Materials and methods:
All articles published in Hip & Pelvis from 2009 to 2019 were included. We classified the articles according to the type, language, listing in PubMed Central (PMC), treatment modality, material, design, anatomical focus, number of authors, and number of cases. We analyzed the citation rate according to this classification, with yearly citation rate reflecting the exposure period until March 2020.
Results:
The yearly citation rate increased significantly after the language of the journal was changed from Korean to English in June 2014 (mean=0.96 vs. 1.63, P<0.05), and again after the journal was listed in PMC in March 2016 (mean=1.05 vs. 1.92, P<0.05). The yearly citation rates of review articles was highest, followed by those of editorials, original articles, and case reports (in this order). Among original articles, trauma-related articles had higher yearly citation rates than non-trauma-related articles (mean=1.00 vs. 0.68, P=0.034). Among clinical articles, studies focusing on the pelvis had higher yearly citation rates than studies on the hip or femur (mean=1.85 vs. 0.71 vs. 0.91, P=0.003).
Conclusion:
The yearly citation rate of articles increased significantly after the language of Hip & Pelvis was changed to English and after the journal was listed in PMC. The mean yearly citation rate of articles focusing on the pelvis was significantly higher than that of articles focusing on the hip or femur.
The present study uses Bio-Bibliometrics to examine the contributions made by Prof P Balaram renowned scientists in the field of Bio-organic chemistry and molecular biophysics from Indian Institute of Science (IISC) in India. It is important to study the contributions made by him to understand magnitudes and nature of contribution in a particular domain. The data was collected using Scopus database. Further the paper highlights on the contributions of P Balaram author productivity, Collaborations magnitude, Productivity of year wise distribution, collaboration coefficient, channels of communications, most used author keywords and high cited papers.
The present study uses Bio-Bibliometrics to examine the contributions made by Prof P Balaram renowned scientists in the field of Bio-organic chemistry and molecular biophysics from Indian Institute of Science (IISC) in India. It is important to study the contributions made by him to understand magnitudes and nature of contribution in a particular domain. The data was collected using Scopus database. Further the paper highlights on the contributions of P Balaram author productivity, Collaborations magnitude, Productivity of year wise distribution, collaboration coefficient, channels of communications, most used author keywords and high cited papers.
The number of citations a publication receives has been regarded as one measure of its importance and clinical impact. However, studies have yet to investigate which characteristics are predictors of citation rates within the spine subspecialty literature. To explore this topic, all articles published in 2010 in Spine and from 2010 to 2011 in The Spine Journal and the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine were reviewed. The Web of Science search engine was used to determine the number of times each article was cited in the 5 years following its publication. Sample characteristics were collected and were compared with a χ test for differences Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to determine if collected study characteristics were associated with achievement of citation frequency higher than the median for the entire study sample. Among the 927 articles analyzed, the 5-year citation number ranged from 0 to 125, with a median of 8 (interquartile range: 4-16). Upon multivariate analysis, the following were identified as predictors of citation number higher than the median: North American origin (P=0.014), sample size >30 (P<0.001), study topic (P<0.050), and publication in the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine (P<0.001). Practitioners and research personnel can use these findings to help elucidate which factors might affect the potential impact and overall reach of their work in the spine literature.
This study is the first to systematically identify the most recognized scholars in sociology in the 1970s and 2010s by citation counts. This is achieved on the basis of a newly generated text corpus of approximately 49,000 pages, which encompasses various genres of literature (encyclopedias, handbooks, journals, textbooks). Investigations into common characteristics reveal that, in the 1970s, elites typically received their PhD from Columbia University, Harvard University, or the University of Chicago. The contemporary elite is partly European. In general, eminence is short-lived (<40 years). Over time, the elite has remained socially heterogeneous, but becomes more mobile and increasingly moves between universities. Coverage in specialist and generalist journals suggests that elite status in sociology cannot be achieved simply by dominating multiple communities inside sociology; elite sociologists are typically well received in the discipline's core.
We highlight women's contributions to freshwater ecology by firstly considering the historical context and gender-based barriers faced by women attempting to gain an education and secure research jobs in science over the past 100+ years. The stories of four remarkable, pioneering women in freshwater ecology (Kathleen Carpenter, Ann Chapman, Rosemary Lowe-McConnell and Ruth Patrick) illustrate the impact of barriers, emphasise the significance of their contributions and provide inspiration for the challenges ahead. Women still face barriers to participation in science, and the second part of the paper focuses on a current form of discrimination, which is citation metrics used to measure the 'quality' or 'impact' of research. We show that arguments that citation metrics reflect research quality are logically flawed, and that women are directly disadvantaged by this practice. Women are also indirectly disadvantaged in ecology because they are more likely to carry out empirical than theoretical research, and publications are generated more slowly from empirical research. Surveys of citation patterns in ecology reveal also that women are less likely to be authors of review papers, which receive three times more citations than do original articles. Unless unfettered use of citation metrics is stopped, research will be damaged, and women will be prominent casualties.
Research into peer-review rarely focuses on academic promotions, most often concentrating on the peer-review process for journals and grants instead. This might be due to limited access to reviews from advancement procedures. Analyses of Italian academic procedures reveal a phenomenon of favouritism and discrimination of scholars assessed by reviewers. Although these analyses refer to processes taking into account both qualitative and quantitative assessment, they focus on qualitative. There is a lack of research to demonstrate a multidimensional picture of reviewers’ approach. This gap is particularly relevant in the so-called soft sciences, the social sciences and humanities. They cannot be assessed by methods used to assess the so-called hard sciences. How, then, can peer reviewers assess work done in the social sciences and humanities? Moreover, what is the modus operandi of reviewers who evaluate scholars within academic promotions processes in the soft sciences? The present doctoral thesis answers these questions.
This thesis analyzed 300 documents from habilitation procedures in Poland, focusing on reviewers’ practices in five scientific disciplines: economics, linguistics, law, psychology, and theology. The main research question was: what are the patterns of reviewers’ practices? Four detailed research questions were also addressed. The first was, what is a quantitative characteristic of the habilitation procedures? The second was, how do reviewers justify their assessments their conclusions? The third research question was, how do reviewers apply assessment criteria for academic promotions? And the fourth was, how do reviewers implement bibliometric methods in their assessments? Mixed methods were used to demonstrate diversity and similarity in reviewers’ practices. Research consisted of two phases: the quantitative analysis and the qualitative analysis. In the quantitative analysis, data concerning habilitation procedures in all disciplines were taken into account (N = 3695) whereas the qualitative analysis only considered reviews from the social sciences and humanities (N = 300). In this thesis, qualitative results were the primary focus since they enabled the author to address the main research question. The results of the quantitative analysis supported interpretation of the qualitative results.
The analysis revealed differences in reviewers’ practices between the scientific disciplines, particularly in the application of assessment criteria. The differences were concerned with methodologies and sets of research tools applied by academics. Scholars who shared a “scientist perspective” (i.e. scholars from economics and psychology) were more inclined to apply applicable criteria than ones who favoured an interpretive and historical approach (i.e. scholars from linguistics, law, and theology). This might be due to the fact that assessment tools are better adjusted to economics and psychology than to other scientific disciplines. Non-acceptance of assessment criteria was expressed through various practices, such as ignoring them or downplaying their role in the overall assessment. These strategies employed by reviewers to handle “unacceptable” criteria were referred to as “outplaying” the system. The results of this research shed new light on assessment practices, particularly on employing criteria in an assessment procedure. The author recommends redefining the role of assessment criteria for academic advancement, reducing their number, and adapting them to so that they apply better to social sciences and humanities.
La biblioteca de la Fundación de Historia Natural Félix de Azara se comenzó con la creación misma de la institución, alcanzando en la actualidad un acervo de más de 10.000 volúmenes. En el estatuto inicial de la Fundación ya figuraba entre sus objetivos el “organizar una biblioteca especializada”.
Las publicaciones se iniciaron en el año 2001. Al presente se han editado más de 80 libros y se han auspiciado más de 30. Se editan además dos revistas periódicas especializadas en ciencias naturales: Historia Natural para artículos originales de geología, paleontología, botánica, zoología y ecología, y Nótulas Faunísticas para comunicaciones sobre hallazgos y novedades de la fauna silvestre de la región.
El archivo se inició también con la creación misma de la institución y conserva todos los documentos que hacen a la historia de la misma. Representa la memoria documental de la Fundación.
INTRODUCTION: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate, permanent implant reconstruction offers patients a prosthetic “breast in a day” compared to tissue expander techniques requiring multiple procedures.
The relationship between the quantity and quality of scientific output of 120 university physicists was studied. Although these two variables are highly correlated, some physicists produce many papers of little significance and others produce a few papers of great significance. The responses of the community of physicists to these distinct patterns of research publication were investigated. Quality of output is more significant than quantity in eliciting recognition through the receipt of awards, appointment to prestigious academic departments, and being widely known to one's colleagues. The reward system operates to encourage creative scientists to be highly productive, to divert the energies of less creative physicists into other channels, and to produce a higher correlation between quantity and quality of output in the top departments than in the weaker departments.
By revealing who has really influenced the course of science the Science Citation Index seems to be a valuable sociometric tool for historians and sociologists.
Since 1922 when Wu proposed the use of the Folin phenol reagent for
the measurement of proteins (l), a number of modified analytical pro-
cedures ut.ilizing this reagent have been reported for the determination
of proteins in serum (2-G), in antigen-antibody precipitates (7-9), and
in insulin (10).
Although the reagent would seem to be recommended by its great sen-
sitivity and the simplicity of procedure possible with its use, it has not
found great favor for general biochemical purposes.
In the belief that this reagent, nevertheless, has considerable merit for
certain application, but that its peculiarities and limitations need to be
understood for its fullest exploitation, it has been studied with regard t.o
effects of variations in pH, time of reaction, and concentration of react-
ants, permissible levels of reagents commonly used in handling proteins,
and interfering subst.ances. Procedures are described for measuring pro-
tein in solution or after precipitation wit,h acids or other agents, and for
the determination of as little as 0.2 y of protein.