Skip to main content

Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007)

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. Centrality is defined as Freeman’s degree centrality of authors in a co-citation network (Freeman 1977/1978). It is equal to the total number of links an author has with all other authors in a network of co-citations.

  2. Although we have analyzed the data for the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine, we chose not to include them in this paper. The citation patterns and statistics observed are very different from those in physics and chemistry. Prizes in physiology and medicine seem to depend more often on practical applications and seem less dependant on highly cited published “discoveries” than they are in physics and chemistry. Citation data are thus even less predictive of Nobel in physiology and medicine than they are in Physics and Chemistry.

  3. These experiments demonstrated the electron’s energy levels and thus supported Bohr’s atomic model. Bohr himself had won the Nobel Prize for his model only three years earlier, in 1922.

  4. The results using citation and centrality rankings being similar, we have omitted the latter from the graphs.

  5. The PACS numbers were originally developed by the American Institute of Physics as a way to identify and distinguish between different subfields of physics. They are now widely used within the discipline.

  6. The prize was shared between Davis and Koshiba for the detection of cosmic neutrinos, and Giacconi for work leading to the detection of cosmic X-ray sources.

References

  • Ashton, S. V., & Oppenheim, C. (1978). A method of predicting Nobel prizewinners in chemistry. Social Studies of Science, 8, 341–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkan, D. K. (1994). Simply a matter of chemistry? The Nobel Prize for 1920. Perspectives on Science, 2(4), 357–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhard, C. G., Crawford, E., & Sörbom, E. (Eds.). (1982). Science and technology in the time of Alfred Nobel. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björk, R. (1991). Inside the Nobel Committee on medicine: Prize competition procedures 1901–1950 and the fate of Carl Neuberg. Minerva, 39, 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1975). The scientific field and the social conditions for the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. (1984). The beginnings of the Nobel institution: The science prizes, 1901–1915. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. (1992). Nationalism and internationalism in science, 1880–1939: Four studies of the nobel population. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. (2002). The nobel population 1901–1950: A census of the nominators and nominees for the prizes in physics and chemistry. Tokyo: Universal Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elzinga, A. (2006). Einstein’s Nobel Prize: A Glimpse behind closed doors. Sagamore Beach: Science History Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1978/1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1: 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. M. (2001). The politics of excellence: Behind the Nobel Prize in science. New York: W.H. Freeman Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1977). The 250 most-cited primary authors, 1961–1975. Part II: The correlation between citedness, Nobel Prizes and Academy memberships. Essays of an Information Scientist, 3, 337–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1981). Are the 1979 prizewinners of Nobel class? Essays of an Information Scientist, 4, 609–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1986). Do Nobel Prize winners write citation classics? Essays of an Information Scientist, 9, 182–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992). Of Nobel class: A citation perspective on high-impact research authors. Theoretical Medicine, 13, 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingras, Y. (2007). Mapping the changing centrality of physicists (1900–1944). Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, pp. 314–320.

  • Jenkin, J. (2001). A unique partnership: William and Lawrence Bragg and the 1915 Nobel Prize in physics. Minerva, 39(4), 373–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kademani, B. S., Kalyane, V. L., Kumar, V., & Mohan, L. (2005). Nobel laureates: Their publication productivity, collaboration and authorship status. Scientometrics, 62(2), 261–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karazija, R., & Momkausaite, A. (2004). The Nobel Prize in physics: Regularities and tendencies. Scientometrics, 61(2), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krige, J. (2001). The 1984 Nobel physics prize for heterogeneous engineering. Minerva, 39(4), 425–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclachlan, J. (1991). Defining physics: The Nobel Prize selection process, 1901–1937. American Journal of Physics, 59(2), 166–174.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’sullivan, A. (2001). Henry Dale’s Nobel Prize winning ‘discovery’. Minerva, 39(4), 409–424.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. (1977). The Nobel elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew L. Wallace.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gingras, Y., Wallace, M.L. Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007). Scientometrics 82, 401–412 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0035-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0035-9

Keywords

  • Nobel Prize
  • Citation
  • Centrality
  • Scientific disciplines