How does Nobel prize awarding shift the research topics of Nobelists’ coauthors and non-coauthors?

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Journal of Informetrics Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2024.101602
Xin Xie , Jin Mao , Jiang Li
{"title":"How does Nobel prize awarding shift the research topics of Nobelists’ coauthors and non-coauthors?","authors":"Xin Xie ,&nbsp;Jin Mao ,&nbsp;Jiang Li","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this study, we investigate the influence of the Nobel prize promulgation on the research attention of Nobelists’ coauthors, especially those who have closely collaborated with the laureates on the prizewinning topics before the promulgation. Do these coauthors follow the prevailing trend triggered by the Nobel prize and consequently increase their studies on the award topics? Or, conversely, do these coauthors curtail their research attention on the honored topics and divert their efforts to new research horizons? To scrutinize this question, we utilize the APS dataset and the publication records of Nobelists to discern coauthorships among scholars. Then we employ network construction and community detection methods to identify scholars' research topics throughout their careers. Besides, we utilized the Propensity Score Matching to construct a parallel sample of Nobelists’ non-coauthors, who had never coauthored a paper with the corresponding laureate but had published at least one paper on the prizewinning topic. Following this, our main result substantiates that, after the Nobel awarding, coauthors exhibit a discernible reduction in publications on the award topics than non-coauthors. And the distinct choices of research strategy among distinct groups of scholars may be explained by the potential information asymmetry and different understandings concerning the award topics, as well as their distinct research intuitions in determining research direction. This study not only contributes to enriching our comprehension of how scientific prizes play a role in shaping research strategies of scientists within the award filed, but also stands as one of the pioneering contributions that focus on Nobelists’ coauthors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 1","pages":"Article 101602"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Informetrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724001147","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this study, we investigate the influence of the Nobel prize promulgation on the research attention of Nobelists’ coauthors, especially those who have closely collaborated with the laureates on the prizewinning topics before the promulgation. Do these coauthors follow the prevailing trend triggered by the Nobel prize and consequently increase their studies on the award topics? Or, conversely, do these coauthors curtail their research attention on the honored topics and divert their efforts to new research horizons? To scrutinize this question, we utilize the APS dataset and the publication records of Nobelists to discern coauthorships among scholars. Then we employ network construction and community detection methods to identify scholars' research topics throughout their careers. Besides, we utilized the Propensity Score Matching to construct a parallel sample of Nobelists’ non-coauthors, who had never coauthored a paper with the corresponding laureate but had published at least one paper on the prizewinning topic. Following this, our main result substantiates that, after the Nobel awarding, coauthors exhibit a discernible reduction in publications on the award topics than non-coauthors. And the distinct choices of research strategy among distinct groups of scholars may be explained by the potential information asymmetry and different understandings concerning the award topics, as well as their distinct research intuitions in determining research direction. This study not only contributes to enriching our comprehension of how scientific prizes play a role in shaping research strategies of scientists within the award filed, but also stands as one of the pioneering contributions that focus on Nobelists’ coauthors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
诺贝尔奖是如何改变诺贝尔奖获得者的合作作者和非合作作者的研究课题的?
在本研究中,我们探讨了诺贝尔奖颁布对诺贝尔奖获得者合作作者研究注意力的影响,尤其是那些在诺贝尔奖颁布前与获奖者就获奖课题有过密切合作的合作作者。这些合作作者是否会追随诺贝尔奖引发的流行趋势,从而增加对获奖课题的研究?反之,这些合作者是否会减少对获奖课题的研究关注,将精力转移到新的研究领域?为了研究这个问题,我们利用 APS 数据集和诺贝尔奖获得者的发表记录来发现学者之间的合著关系。然后,我们采用网络构建和社群检测方法来确定学者在其职业生涯中的研究课题。此外,我们还利用倾向得分匹配法(Propensity Score Matching)构建了诺贝尔奖获得者的非合作作者平行样本,这些非合作作者从未与相应的获奖者合作发表过论文,但至少发表过一篇关于获奖主题的论文。随后,我们的主要结果证实,在诺贝尔奖获得之后,与非共同作者相比,共同作者在获奖主题上发表的论文明显减少。而不同学者群体在研究策略上的不同选择,可能是因为潜在的信息不对称和对获奖课题的不同理解,以及他们在确定研究方向时的不同研究直觉。这项研究不仅有助于丰富我们对科学奖项如何在影响获奖科学家研究策略方面发挥作用的理解,而且也是关注诺贝尔奖获得者共同作者的开创性贡献之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Informetrics
Journal of Informetrics Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.20%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: Journal of Informetrics (JOI) publishes rigorous high-quality research on quantitative aspects of information science. The main focus of the journal is on topics in bibliometrics, scientometrics, webometrics, patentometrics, altmetrics and research evaluation. Contributions studying informetric problems using methods from other quantitative fields, such as mathematics, statistics, computer science, economics and econometrics, and network science, are especially encouraged. JOI publishes both theoretical and empirical work. In general, case studies, for instance a bibliometric analysis focusing on a specific research field or a specific country, are not considered suitable for publication in JOI, unless they contain innovative methodological elements.
期刊最新文献
Citation recommendation based on argumentative zoning of user queries An empirical study of retractions due to honest errors: Exploring the relationship between error types and author teams The disruption index suffers from citation inflation: Re-analysis of temporal CD trend and relationship with team size reveal discrepancies Metrics fraud on ResearchGate How does Nobel prize awarding shift the research topics of Nobelists’ coauthors and non-coauthors?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1