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

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

[1]  Kevin W Boyack,et al.  A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field , 2019, PLoS biology.

[2]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Nobel laureates are almost the same as us , 2019, Nature Reviews Physics.

[3]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  A dataset of publication records for Nobel laureates , 2019, Scientific Data.

[4]  James A. Evans,et al.  Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology , 2019, Nature.

[5]  Michael Szell,et al.  A Nobel opportunity for interdisciplinarity , 2018, Nature Physics.

[6]  Yifang Ma,et al.  Scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Research Portfolio Analysis and Topic Prominence , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[8]  Kevin W Boyack,et al.  The Research Focus of Nations: Economic vs. Altruistic Motivations , 2017, PloS one.

[9]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  At what institutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-winning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from 1994 to 2014 , 2016, Scientometrics.

[10]  M. Heinemann The Matthew Effect , 2016, Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon.

[11]  Ho Fai Chan,et al.  The first cut is the deepest: repeated interactions of coauthorship and academic productivity in Nobel laureate teams , 2015, Scientometrics.

[12]  Ho Fai Chan,et al.  Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception? , 2015, Scientometrics.

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

[14]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Bibliometrics: Is your most cited work your best? , 2014, Nature.

[15]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Collective credit allocation in science , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Jing Liu,et al.  Landmark papers written by the Nobelists in physics from 1901 to 2012: a bibliometric analysis of their citations and journals , 2014, Scientometrics.

[17]  Ho Fai Chan,et al.  The implications of educational and methodological background for the career success of Nobel laureates: an investigation of major awards , 2014, Scientometrics.

[18]  Jing Liu,et al.  Bibliometric analysis of Nobelists’ awards and landmark papers in physiology or medicine during 1983–2012 , 2013, Annals of medicine.

[19]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection , 2013, The European Physical Journal B.

[20]  Ho Fai Chan,et al.  Science prizes: Time-lapsed awards for excellence , 2013, Nature.

[21]  Petr Heneberg,et al.  Supposedly uncited articles of Nobel laureates and Fields medalists can be prevalently attributed to the errors of omission and commission , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  V. Larivière,et al.  Design and Update of a Classification System: The UCSD Map of Science , 2012, PloS one.

[23]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  How Citation Boosts Promote Scientific Paradigm Shifts and Nobel Prizes , 2011, PloS one.

[24]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  OpenOrd: an open-source toolbox for large graph layout , 2011, Electronic Imaging.

[25]  H. Adami Epidemiology and the Elusive Nobel Prize , 2009, Epidemiology.

[26]  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 .

[27]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Concentration of the Most-Cited Papers in the Scientific Literature: Analysis of Journal Ecosystems , 2006, PloS one.

[28]  Andre K. Geim,et al.  Electric Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films , 2004, Science.

[29]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  A probabilistic model of information retrieval: development and comparative experiments - Part 1 , 2000, Inf. Process. Manag..

[30]  R Smith,et al.  Comroe and Dripps revisited. , 1987, British medical journal.

[31]  B. Marshall,et al.  UNIDENTIFIED CURVED BACILLI IN THE STOMACH OF PATIENTS WITH GASTRITIS AND PEPTIC ULCERATION , 1984, The Lancet.

[32]  J. H. Comroe,et al.  Scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. , 1976, Science.

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