ArticlePloS one2019
From North American hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decline of German and rise of North-American hegemony in science: Insights from Nobel Prize nominations (Physics/Chemistry, 1901-1969).PloS one · 2025Article
- Geographies of the global co-editor network in oncology.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
- Global citation inequality is on the rise.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Institutional environments and breakthroughs in science. Comparison of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.PloS one · 2020Article
- Correction: From North American hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Based on the entire population of Nobel laureates in science from 1901 to 2017, we show that North America's rise as global power in science started in the 1920s. Following a transition period (1940s to 1960s), its scientific hegemony was consolidated in the 1970s. Yet since the 2000s, North America's global leadership in science has come under pressure. In that time, its share of laureates across disciplines dropped, although it has retained its attractiveness as a destination for future laureates from Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, we find that North America has become apparently less effective since 2010 in transferring capacities for conducting ground-breaking research from one generation of scientists to another. Furthermore, both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region have similarly high shares of newcomer organizations with regard to where prize-winning work is conducted, indicating that these two regions are very active in the inter-organizational competition for scientific talent. Despite this competition, however, we find no support for the rise of a new global center of science.
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.