ArticlePloS one2015
Do Nobel Laureates Create Prize-Winning Networks? An Analysis of Collaborative Research in Physiology or Medicine.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- Negotiating knowledge: The role of network hedging in the production of high-impact science.PloS one · 2026Article
- A multidimensional research productivity dataset of 21Scientific data · 2025Article
- Article
- Trajectories of biomedical research leading to Nobel Prize-winning discoveries.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2024Article
- Surprising combinations of research contents and contexts are related to impact and emerge with scientific outsiders from distant disciplines.Nature communications · 2023Article
- And the award goes to…the Matthew Effect: Examining external status as a predictor of productivity and opportunity.PloS one · 2023Article
- Winners and runners-up alike?-a comparison between awardees and special mention recipients of the most reputable science award in Colombia via a composite citation indicator.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2022Article
- The Colombian scientific elite-Science mapping and a comparison with Nobel Prize laureates using a composite citation indicator.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Do extraordinary science and technology scientists balance their publishing and patenting activities?PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- From cut-points to key players in co-authorship networks: a case study in ventilator-associated pneumonia research.Scientometrics · 2020Article
- From North American hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population.PloS one · 2019Article
- Scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Rosalind's Ghost: Biology, Collaboration, and the Female.PLoS biology · 2016Article
- Considerations for higher efficiency and productivity in research activities.BioData mining · 2016Article
- Correction: Do Nobel Laureates Create Prize-Winning Networks? An Analysis of Collaborative Research in Physiology or Medicine.PloS one · 2015Article
- Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity-A tribute to Eugene Garfield.ScientometricsArticle
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine who received the Prize between 1969 and 2011 are compared to a matched group of scientists to examine productivity, impact, coauthorship and international collaboration patterns embedded within research networks. After matching for research domain, h-index, and year of first of publication, we compare bibliometric statistics and network measures. We find that the Laureates produce fewer papers but with higher average citations. The Laureates also produce more sole-authored papers both before and after winning the Prize. The Laureates have a lower number of coauthors across their entire careers than the matched group, but are equally collaborative on average. Further, we find no differences in international collaboration patterns. The Laureates coauthor network reveals significant differences from the non-Laureate network. Laureates are more likely to build bridges across a network when measuring by average degree, density, modularity, and communities. Both the Laureate and non-Laureate networks have "small world" properties, but the Laureates appear to exploit "structural holes" by reaching across the network in a brokerage style that may add social capital to the network. The dynamic may be making the network itself highly attractive and selective. These findings suggest new insights into the role "star scientists" in social networks and the production of scientific discoveries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.