ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
Scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of goal orientation, collaboration, and stress in shaping scientific creativity.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The distinctive innovation patterns and network embeddedness of scientific prizewinners.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Article
- How the Nobel Committee for Chemistry Has Shaped the Nobel Prize: Historical Trends Based on the Nobel Prize Nomination Archive.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Are Women Physicians Underrecognized for National Awards in Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine? An Observational Study.Muscle & nerve · 2025Observational
- The Current Research Landscape on the Machine Learning Application in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Bibliometric Analysis From 1999 to 2023.Current neuropharmacology · 2025Article
- Gender disparities in social and personality psychology awards from 1968 to 2021.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- "Best Paper" awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Hidden citations obscure true impact in science.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Bibliometric analysis on physical ergonomics: A visual mapping approach.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Ranking mobility and impact inequality in early academic careers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science.Nature human behaviour · 2023Review
- Little transparency and equity in scientific awards for early- and mid-career researchers in ecology and evolution.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Surprising combinations of research contents and contexts are related to impact and emerge with scientific outsiders from distant disciplines.Nature communications · 2023Article
- A deep-learning model of prescient ideas demonstrates that they emerge from the periphery.PNAS nexus · 2023Article
- A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 publications in neurology by using the visual mapping method.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Scientific X-ray: Scanning and quantifying the idea evolution of scientific publications.PloS one · 2022Article
- The Colombian scientific elite-Science mapping and a comparison with Nobel Prize laureates using a composite citation indicator.PloS one · 2022Article
- 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
- Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics.Nature communications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
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.