Vying for a Nobel Prize: Analysis of Nobel Prizes in the sciences
By A. A. Veikher and I. S. Nikiforova (NRU HSE – Saint-Petersburg)
Examining the issue of potential underrepresentation (Tutunik, 2010) and
disadvantage of Russian scientists in being selected for the Nobel Prize, the study assesses
the patterns of awarding the Nobel Prizes in sciences (physics, chemistry, medicine, and
economics) over the last 67 years, since the end of the World War II and rebuilding of
Europe. Considering the importance of discovery and ground breaking research for industrial
and economic development, the receipt of the Nobel Prize reflects modern economic trends
and provides a record of leading centers and countries vested in research as well as migration
and collaboration patterns of future prize winners.
The Nobel Prize, awarded to “the most worthy” candidates in physics, chemistry,
physiology or medicine, literature and peace, has become the most significant scientific
award and “the highest” honor in science. Not counting the numerous popular literature about
history and controversies surrounding the prize and its scientists, researchers have analyzed
the productivity and age of Nobel Prize scientists (Baffes & Vamvakidis, 2011; Stephan &
Levin, 1992; Kademani, Kalyane, Kumar, Mohan, 2005); citation patterns (Mazloumian ,
Eom, Helbing , Lozano , Fortunato, 2011; Boettke, Fink, & Smith, 2012), influence of
subfields and trends in a particular discipline such as physics (Karazia & Momkauskaite,
2004); however, the model of predicting Nobel Prize winners (Ashton & Oppenheim, 1978;
Broooks, 2008; Gingras & Wallace, 2009; Garfield & Malin, 1968; Garfield, 1970) remains
difficult and systematic analysis of awarding the countries remains unexamined in the last 25
years. Russian scientists and artists, in particular, have a troublesome relationship with the
Nobel and like prizes, rejecting the prize for personal and political reasons (Bojarintsev,
Fionova & Samarin, 2010), reporting disadvantages in priority disputes (Bojarintsev, Fionova
& Samarin, 2010; Leskov, 2006; Mironin, 2006; Singh & Riess, 2001), and questioning the
fairness of the selection process (Bojarintsev, Fionova & Samarin, 2010; Mende, 2010;
Mironin, 2006).
Being an international award that is distributed to individuals regardless their nationality,
the Nobel Prize inadvertently became a national measure of scientific success and creative
capability. However, it is not clear whether all countries are equally likely to be awarded and
whether their contributions are equally visible to the international community. A number of
researchers have noted that papers published by Russian scientists in co-authorship with
foreign scientists often get higher citation rates, suggesting that Russian scientists may be
disadvantaged due to being invisible and unknown by international community (Kirchik,
2011; Kirchik, Gingras, Lariviere, 2012). Russia, as some other European countries, has a
1
“nationally-oriented” model of science communication (Kirchik, 2011) where scientists
publish primarily in Russian and in national journals and have a very limited coverage in
international bibliometric databases (Kirchik, Gingras, Lariviere, 2012). The decision and the
choice of award winners is likely to be the political outcome of weighting multiple factors
(e.g., age, area of contribution, functionally relevant or irrelevant preferences of the
committee), and not simply the merit of contributions, however, an analysis is needed to
establish the trends in the bestowal of the Nobel Prizes. In this paper we offer quantitative
analysis where we evaluate
1) Time series (categorical) trends in awarding Nobel Prizes by country,
2) Migration and collaboration patterns of Nobel Prize winners,
3) Changes in probabilities of receiving the Nobel Prize over time.
We also consider and suggest the regression model that evaluates the factors influencing the
number of Nobel Prizes.
The study is based on data collected about Nobel Prize winners (N=494) from 1947
through 2013 in physics, chemistry, medicine and economic sciences, from the official
source–the Nobel Foundation (Nobelprize.org) as well as country citation reports, retrieved
from the Essential Science Indicators of the Thomson Reuter's Web of Knowledge platform
and economic indicators retrieved from OECD. The bibliometric indicators of publication
activity from the Web of Science are particularly appropriate for the study as they show the
level of internalization of science and its fields (Kirchik, 2011).
Time series trends, probabilities and forecasts
In all four disciplines we found the recurrent pattern of leadership by the United
States and its cumulative advantage from receiving numerous prizes (winning 46% of the
Nobel Prizes in physics; 48% in chemistry, 51% in medicine and 69% in economic sciences).
Earlier studies have observed that certain countries as the United States have a higher number
of nominees owning to the number of living Nobel Prize winners. In our study we examine
time series trends in receiving Nobel Prizes. Having analyzed the history of awarding the
prizes in economics, we are able to estimate, for example, the probability of winning for a
country that is not the United States. In 2014 the probability of winning the Nobel Prize of a
by a non-US country will be around 0.5, however, if non-US nominee will not win the prize
that year, then the following year, in 2015, the chances of winning the prize will increase to
0.8. If in 2015 the non-US country won't win the prize again then in 2016 the probability of
winning will approach 1. The trends also help to identify a few clusters, consisting of a group
of constant members, periodic winners, and rare winners. The group of constant winners
consists of one country – the United States, while periodic winners include UK, Germany,
2
Switzerland, Japan, France and others in specific disciplines. These results can be interpreted
objectively (number of researchers in a country, volume of research produced) as well as
subjectively.
Migration and collaboration patterns
About one third of future Nobel Prize winners were born in different countries from
where they received the Nobel Prize: 33% in physics, 31% in chemistry, 32% in medicine,
and 26% in economic sciences. Those who migrated represent a mixed group: migrating
families as well as future winners pursuing education or work in another country. Creative
and talented researchers are often mobile and follow lucrative opportunities. In all cases, the
country that was receiving the majority of future Nobel Prize winners was the United States
(from 56% to 80% of cases). Patterns of joined affiliation and collaboration are also heavily
skewed towards the participation of the United States.
The meaning of the Nobel Prize in the last half-century exceeded the scope and
interest of a nation and the national model of science. Cumulative indicators of distribution of
prizes by countries are being perceived as national contribution to the development of
international science and as a sign of success and strength of national education and
economy. Since the selection process is surrounded by mystery, it gives us impetus to look
for patterns in the awards that could shed some light on the principles guiding the bestowal of
awards. Using collected data, our study describes the state of international science, according
the Nobel Prize institute, and provides evidence for recognition challenges faced by
developing countries such as Russia.
3