ArticlePloS one2025
Decline of German and rise of North-American hegemony in science: Insights from Nobel Prize nominations (Physics/Chemistry, 1901-1969).
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper examines the shift in global scientific leadership from Germany to the United States using data on Nobel Prize nominations in Physics and Chemistry from 1901 to 1969. Building on the theoretical frameworks of Ben-David and Hollingsworth, we explore how nomination patterns reflect global shifts in scientific hegemony. In the early 20th century, Germany dominated the Nobel nomination process, with its scientists frequently acting both as nominators and nominees. During the 1930s, however, the United States rose to prominence, becoming the leading force in global science. By the mid-20th century, American scientists constituted a substantial share of both nominees and nominators, reflecting the nation's emergence as a global research leader. Self-nomination trends align with this hegemonic transition. Despite their dominance in the nomination process during their respective periods of global leadership, neither country demonstrated a particular capacity to influence selection outcomes. Regression analysis reveals limited advantages for nominees from hegemonic nations and no consistent effects for nominators, illustrating the distinction between controlling nominations and shaping laureate selections. This study offers insights into the dynamics of scientific prestige and the relationship between national hegemony and institutional frameworks.
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.