Scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science

Scientific prizes confer credibility to persons, ideas, and disciplines, provide financial incentives, and promote community-building celebrations. We examine the growth dynamics and interlocking relationships found in the worldwide scientific prize network. We focus on understanding how the knowledge linkages among prizes and scientists’ propensities for prizewinning relate to knowledge pathways between disciplines and stratification within disciplines. Our data cover more than 3,000 different scientific prizes in diverse disciplines and the career histories of 10,455 prizewinners worldwide for over 100 years. We find several key links between prizes and scientific advances. First, despite an explosive proliferation of prizes over time and across the globe, prizes are more concentrated within a relatively small group of scientific elites, and ties among elites are highly clustered, suggesting that a relatively constrained number of ideas and scholars push the boundaries of science. For example, 64.1% of prizewinners have won two prizes and 13.7% have won five or more prizes. Second, certain prizes strongly interlock disciplines and subdisciplines, creating key pathways by which knowledge spreads and is recognized across science. Third, genealogical and coauthorship networks predict who wins multiple prizes, which helps to explain the interconnectedness among celebrated scientists and their pathbreaking ideas.

[1]  William T. Golden.  Scientific Elite : Nobel Laureates in the United States , 2018 .

[2]  R. Whitley.  The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Second Edition: with new introductory chapter entitled 'Science Transformed? The Changing Nature of Knowledge Production at the End of the Twentieth Century') , 1984 .

[3]  M. Mulkay.  The Mediating Role of the Scientific Elite , 1976 .

[4]  César A. Hidalgo.  Why Information Grows: The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies , 2015 .

[5]  Daniel M. Romero,et al.  The nearly universal link between the age of past knowledge and tomorrow’s breakthroughs in science and technology: The hotspot , 2017, Science Advances.

[6]  Raphael Heiko Heiberger,et al.  Choosing Collaboration Partners. How Scientific Success in Physics Depends on Network Positions , 2016, ArXiv.

[7]  Caroline S. Wagner,et al.  Do Nobel Laureates Create Prize-Winning Networks? An Analysis of Collaborative Research in Physiology or Medicine , 2015, PloS one.

[8]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[9]  Harriet Zuckerman,et al.  Stratification in American Science , 1970 .

[10]  W. Myers,et al.  Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact , 2013 .

[11]  Stasa Milojevic,et al.  Modes of collaboration in modern science: Beyond power laws and preferential attachment , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  W. Powell,et al.  Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences1 , 2005, American Journal of Sociology.

[13]  J. S. Long,et al.  DEPARTMENTAL EFFECTS ON SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTIVITY , 1990 .

[14]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science , 2008, Science.

[15]  A. Vercelli,et al.  Giuseppe Levi: Mentor of Three Nobel Laureates , 2006, Journal of the history of the neurosciences.

[16]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The structure of information pathways in a social communication network , 2008, KDD.

[17]  Jacob G Foster,et al.  Choosing experiments to accelerate collective discovery , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  M E J Newman,et al.  Modularity and community structure in networks. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  Paul B. Slater,et al.  A two-stage algorithm for extracting the multiscale backbone of complex weighted networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  Jose M Valderas,et al.  Why Do Team-Authored Papers Get Cited More? , 2007, Science.

[21]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[22]  Jason Owen-Smith,et al.  From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities , 2003 .

[23]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data , 2007, SIAM Rev..

[24]  J. Lerner,et al.  Inducement Prizes and Innovation , 2008 .

[25]  M E J Newman,et al.  Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[26]  Harriet Zuckerman,et al.  Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States: , 1979 .

[27]  R. Kostoff.  The (scientific) wealth of nations , 2004 .

[28]  T. Nicholas,et al.  Prizes, Publicity and Patents: Non‐Monetary Awards as a Mechanism to Encourage Innovation , 2013 .

[29]  J. R. Cole,et al.  Scientific output and recognition: a study in the operation of the reward system in science. , 1967, American sociological review.

[30]  Marián Boguñá,et al.  Extracting the multiscale backbone of complex weighted networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  Roger Guimerà,et al.  Extracting the hierarchical organization of complex systems , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[33]  D. Rodman,et al.  The undoing project: a friendship that changed our minds , 2017 .

[34]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  The New ABCs of Research: Achieving Breakthrough Collaborations , 2016 .

[35]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[36]  E. Salas,et al.  Team cognition : understanding the factors that drive process and performance , 2004 .

[37]  Stasa Milojevic,et al.  Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Collaborative Research Across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries , 2005 .

[39]  R. Merton.  The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. , 1968, Science.

[40]  S. Milojevic.  Modes of collaboration in modern science: Beyond power laws and preferential attachment , 2010 .

[41]  S. Haustein,et al.  Long-Distance Interdisciplinarity Leads to Higher Scientific Impact , 2015, PloS one.

[42]  G. Lewis,et al.  The . Matthew Effect 0 m Science The reward and communication systems of science are considered , 1999 .

[43]  Katy Börner,et al.  A Multi-Level Systems Perspective for the Science of Team Science , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

[44]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  The Matthew effect in empirical data , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[45]  Katy Börner,et al.  Mapping knowledge domains , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[46]  R A Rothman.  A dissenting view on the scientific ethos. , 1972, The British journal of sociology.

[47]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Science of Science , 2018, Science.

[48]  Pierre Azoulay,et al.  Incentives and Creativity: Evidence from the Academic Life Sciences , 2009 .

[49]  Scott Stern,et al.  Climbing Atop the Shoulders of Giants: The Impact of Institutions on Cumulative Research , 2006 .

[50]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , 1979 .

[51]  Stephen Cole,et al.  Social Stratification in Science , 1974 .

[52]  A. Raftery.  Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research , 1995 .

[53]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  The dual frontier: Patented inventions and prior scientific advance , 2017, Science.

[54]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The role of social networks in information diffusion , 2012, WWW.

[55]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact , 2016, Science.

[56]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Mapping the backbone of science , 2004, Scientometrics.

[57]  Marta Sales-Pardo,et al.  Statistical validation of a global model for the distribution of the ultimate number of citations accrued by papers published in a scientific journal , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[58]  R Alexander Bentley,et al.  Why do team-authored papers get cited more? , 2007, Science.

[59]  A. Svorenčík,et al.  DEFINING EXCELLENCE: SEVENTY YEARS OF THE JOHN BATES CLARK MEDAL , 2019, Journal of the History of Economic Thought.

[60]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Networks, Fields and Organizations: Micro-Dynamics, Scale and Cohesive Embeddings , 2004, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[61]  James F. English.  The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value , 2005 .

[62]  Jerry Gaston,et al.  The reward system in British and American science , 1979 .

[63]  Andrey Rzhetsky,et al.  Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies , 2013, ArXiv.

[64]  Roger Guimerà,et al.  Team Assembly Mechanisms Determine Collaboration Network Structure and Team Performance , 2005, Science.

[65]  Katy Börner,et al.  Analyzing and visualizing the semantic coverage of Wikipedia and its authors , 2005, Complex..

[66]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Prizes: Growing time lag threatens Nobels , 2014, Nature.

[67]  東京物理學校,et al.  理學 : The science , 1946 .

[68]  David R. Segal,et al.  The Reward System in British and American Science. , 1979 .

[69]  Benjamin N. Roin.  Intellectual Property versus Prizes: Reframing the Debate , 2013 .

[70]  G. Borjas,et al.  Prizes and Productivity: How Winning the Fields Medal Affects Scientific Output , 2013 .

[71]  H. Zuckerman,et al.  The proliferation of prizes: Nobel complements and Nobel surrogates in the reward system of science , 1992, Theoretical medicine.