|
|
|
| Research on the Nobel Prize in Science Based on Institutional Attributes |
| Men Weili1, Zhang Zhiqiang2 |
1. China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088
2. Chengdu Library and Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The Nobel Prize in Science is an international science and technology award of the highest academic authority, the longest time series, and the greatest international impact of achievements and a large mumber of winners in modern science and technology awards. We conducted an in-depth analysis of Nobel Prize data to help reveal the potential laws of scientific and technological development. The study systematically collected and analyzed information on Nobel Prize for Science award-winning institutions in 1901 and 2018. On the basis of the features of institutions, we divided winning organizations into five categories: universities; research institutes or laboratories; foundations; enterprises or companies; and hospitals or clinics. Through a detailed statistical analysis, the following conclusions were reached. It was thought that award-winning institutions were highly concentrated in universities and research institutes, but the major winners such as the United States, Britain, Germany, and France presented different characteristics; the age-changing trends of the winners based on the attributes of different award-winning institutions showed disciplinary differences, and the Nobel Prize in Physics presented obvious characteristics. The winners of the Nobel Prize in Science, the age of major achievements, and the time lag of awards all showed similar trends, but the winners of different award-winning institutions in the same discipline showed different trends; the phenomenon of researchers belonging to multiple institutions promoted academic exchange and cooperation across institutions, and the major award-winning institutions and countries. Finally, the study suggested that China will rank at the forefront of innovative countries and the world s strongest countries in science and technology only if it focuses on building a strong foundation in basic scientific research. Four suggestions were put forward.
|
|
Received: 15 April 2019
|
|
|
|
1 ZuckermanH. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States[M]. New York: Free Press, 1977.
2 重大科学发现偏爱青年人[J]. 中国民营科技与经济, 1996(3): 27.
3 梁立明. 科学发现年龄定律是一种威布尔分布[J]. 自然辩证法通讯, 1991, 13(1): 28-36.
4 朱安远, 朱婧姝, 郭华珍. 历届诺贝尔奖得主各种年龄(年限)的分布研究(上)[J]. 中国市场, 2015(2): 130-138.
5 PezzoniM, MairesseJ, StephanP, et al. Gender and the publication output of graduate students: A case study[J]. PLoS ONE, 2016, 11(1): e0145146.
6 朱安远, 郭华珍, 朱婧姝. 历届诺贝尔奖得主国籍的分布研究(下)[J]. 中国市场, 2015(7): 140-151.
7 Cruz-CokeR. Posthumous nomination for medicine Nobel Prizes. II. The positivism era (1849-1899)[J]. Revista Médica de Chile, 1997, 125(6): 728-731.
8 刘少雪. 大学与大师: 谁成就了谁——以诺贝尔科学奖获得者的教育和工作经历为视角[J]. 高等教育研究, 2012, 33(2): 30-34.
9 眭平. 重大科学发现出现年龄趋高走势及思考[J]. 科学学研究, 2004, 22(2): 137-139.
10 StoltC M, KleinG, JanssonA T R. An analysis of a wrong Nobel Prize—Johannes Fibiger, 1926: A study in the Nobel archives[J]. Advances in Cancer Research, 2004, 92: 1-12.
11 FroschK H. Workforce age and innovation: A literature survey[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2011, 13(4): 414-430.
12 蔡聪裕, 陈宝国. 诺贝尔奖获得者的教育背景统计分析及对我国研究生教育的启示[J]. 中国高教研究, 2012(5): 33-37.
13 WangD S, SongC M, BarabásiA L. Quantifying long-term scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6154): 127-132.
14 廖日坤, 韦宇, 周辉. 基础性研究和原创性研究的重大应用——以诺贝尔奖信息领域应用为例[J]. 科研管理, 2015, 36(S1): 518-522.
15 ChanH F, ?nderA S, TorglerB. Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception?[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 105(3): 2215-2235.
16 GrynkiewiczG. Nobel Prize winners[J]. Przemysl Chemiczny, 2017, 96(10): 2016.
17 HanssonN, FangerauH. Female physicians nominated for the Nobel Prize 1901-50[J]. The Lancet, 2018, 391(10126): 1157-1158.
18 JonesB F. The burden of knowledge and the “Death of the Renaissance Man”: Is innovation getting harder?[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 2009, 76(1): 283-317.
19 SinatraR, WangD, DevilleP, et al. Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact[J]. Science, 2016, 354(6312): aaf5239.
20 JonesB F, WeinbergB A. Age dynamics in scientific creativity[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011, 108(47): 18910-18914.
21 WayS F, MorganA C, ClausetA, et al. The misleading narrative of the canonical faculty productivity trajectory[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017, 114(44): E9216-E9223.
22 门伟莉, 张志强. 科研创造峰值年龄变化规律研究综述[J]. 科学学研究, 2013, 31(11): 1623-1629.
23 周爱民. 科学发现年龄定律的再探讨[J]. 科技视界, 2012(11): 88-89, 141.
24 门伟莉, 张志强. 诺贝尔科学奖授奖时滞研究[J]. 情报学报, 2015, 34(4): 361-370.
25 门伟莉, 张志强. 诺贝尔科学奖跨学科师承效应定量研究[J]. 科学学研究, 2015, 33(4): 498-506.
26 张志强, 门伟莉. 诺贝尔物理学奖获得者中师承效应量化研究[J]. 情报学报, 2014, 33(9): 926-935.
27 HirschJ E. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102(46): 16569-16572.
28 张庆芝, 段勇倩, 雷家骕. 基于科学的创新研究——以诺贝尔奖科学成果到商业产品为例[J]. 科学学研究, 2015, 33(12): 1770-1778, 1866.
29 GrosC. An empirical study of the per capita yield of science Nobel prizes: Is the US era coming to an end?[J]. Royal Society Open Science, 2018, 5(5): 180167.
30 AllenM. Is the end in sight for US Nobel prize dominance?[J]. Physics World, 2018, 31(6): 7.
31 员智凯, 张艳. 从诺贝尔奖分析现代大学科学研究创新[J]. 西北工业大学学报(社会科学版), 2002, 22(3): 57-61.
32 SchlagbergerE M, BornmannL, BauerJ. At what institutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-winning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from 1994 to 2014[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(2): 723-767.
33 YeS Q, XingR, LiuJ, et al. Bibliometric analysis of Nobelists’ awards and landmark papers in physiology or medicine during 1983-2012[J]. Annals of Medicine, 2013, 45(8): 532-538.
34 HillebrandC D. Nobel century: A biographical analysis of physics laureates[J]. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 2002, 27(2): 87-93.
35 CharltonB G. Scientometric identification of elite ‘revolutionary science’ research institutions by analysis of trends in Nobel prizes 1947-2006[J]. Medical Hypotheses, 2007, 68(5): 931-934.
36 周光召. 历史的启迪和重大科学发现产生的条件[J]. 科技导报, 2000, 18(1): 3-9.
37 丁建洋. 日本大学创新能力的历史建构研究[D]. 南京: 南京大学, 2013.
38 张志强，田倩飞，陈云伟. 科技强国主要科技指标体系比较研究[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2018, 33(10): 1052-1063.
39 陶诚, 张志强, 陈云伟. 关于我国建设基础科学研究强国的若干思考[J]. 世界科技研究与发展, 2019, 41(2): 1-15.
40 章娟, 段志光, 于琦, 等. 中科院院士与诺贝尔生理学或医学奖获得者获奖前SCI论文比较[J]. 医学与哲学, 2016, 37(1): 22-26.
41 HornerK L, RushtonJ P, VernonP A. Relation between aging and research productivity of academic psychologists[J]. Psychology and Aging, 1986, 1(4): 319-324.
42 SimontonD K. Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of domain-specific disposition, development, and achievement[J]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2009, 4(5): 441-452.
43 门伟莉, 张志强. 科研创造峰值年龄变化规律研究——以自然科学领域诺奖得主为例[J]. 科学学研究, 2013, 31(8): 1152-1159. |
|
|
|
