, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 931–939 | Cite as

The age at which Noble Prize research is conducted

  • R. BjørkEmail author


Nobel Laureates are used as a proxy to study at what age scientists produce their most groundbreaking work. We determine the average age of Nobel Laureates at the time that their Prize-winning research was conducted. This is done using the Advanced Information document with scientific background information published by the Nobel Foundation for every awarded Nobel Prize since 1995 for physics and economics, 2000 for chemistry and 2006 for physiology or medicine. For all Laureates their average age when their Prize-winning research was conducted was \(44.1 \pm 9.7\), with Laureates in physics generally being younger compared to the other fields. It is shown to be statistically significant that Laureates in physics have published their Nobel Prize winning works within a shorter span of years compared to the other fields, whereas Laureates in economics use a longer span of years. The number of papers cited by the Nobel Foundation for each Laureate was found to be \(9.6 \pm 8.6\), with Laureates in physics have significantly fewer papers cited compared to the other fields, \(5.4 \pm 4.8\), while Laureates in economics have significantly more, \(17.3 \pm 11.5\). Finally, we find that Laureates wait an average of \(22.3 \pm 10.8\) years between conducting their prize-winning research and receiving the Nobel Prize.


Nobel Prize Age Highest-impact work Number of papers Waiting time Average age 


  1. Baffes, J., & Vamvakidis, A. (2011). Are you too young for the Nobel Prize? Research Policy, 40, 1345–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chan, H. F., Gleeson, L., & Torgler, B. (2014). Awards before and after the Nobel Prize: A Matthew effect and/or a ticket to ones own funeral? Research Evaluation, 23, 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chan, H. F., Önder, A. S., & Torgler, B. (2015). Do Nobel Laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception? Scientometrics, 105, 2215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan, H. F., Önder, A. S., & Torgler, B. (2016). The first cut is the deepest: Repeated interactions of coauthorship and academic productivity in Nobel Laureate teams. Scientometrics, 106, 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan, H. F., & Torgler, B. (2013). Science prizes: Time-lapsed awards for excellence. Nature, 500, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, H. F., & Torgler, B. (2015). The implications of educational and methodological background for the career success of Nobel Laureates: An investigation of major awards. Scientometrics, 102, 847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clauset, A., Larremore, D. B., & Sinatra, R. (2017). Data-driven predictions in the science of science. Science, 355, 477–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones, B. F., & Weinberg, B. A. (2011). Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 18910–18914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Karazija, R., & Momkauskait, A. (2004). The Nobel prize in physics—regularities and tendencies. Scientometrics, 61, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kragh, H. (1999). Quantum generations: A history of physics in the twentieth century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Manniche, E., & Falk, G. (1957). Age and the Nobel prize. Systems Research, 2, 301–307.Google Scholar
  12. Schlagberger, E. M., Bornmann, L., & Bauer, J. (2016). At what institutions did Nobel Laureates do their prizewinning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel Laureates from 1994 to 2014. Scientometrics, 109, 723–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science, 354, aaf5239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1993). Age and the Nobel prize revisited. Scientometrics, 28, 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wagner, C. S., Horlings, E., Whetsell, T. A., Mattsson, P., & Nordqvist, K. (2015). Do Nobel Laureates create prize-winning networks? An analysis of collaborative research in physiology or medicine. PLoS ONE, 10, e0134164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Way, S. F., Morgan, A. C., Clauset, A., & Larremore, D. B. (2017). The misleading narrative of the canonical faculty productivity trajectory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, E9216–E9223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Energy Conversion and StorageTechnical University of Denmark - DTURoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations