Dataset Information

Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics.

ABSTRACT: Fast growing scientific topics have famously been key harbingers of the new frontiers of science, yet, large-scale analyses of their genesis and impact are rare. We investigated one possible factor connected with a topic's extraordinary growth: scientific prizes. Our longitudinal analysis of nearly all recognized prizes worldwide and over 11,000 scientific topics from 19 disciplines indicates that topics associated with a scientific prize experience extraordinary growth in productivity, impact, and new entrants. Relative to matched non-prizewinning topics, prizewinning topics produce 40% more papers and 33% more citations, retain 55% more scientists, and gain 37 and 47% more new entrants and star scientists, respectively, in the first five-to-ten years after the prize. Funding do not account for a prizewinning topic's growth. Rather, growth is positively related to the degree to which the prize is discipline-specific, conferred for recent research, or has prize money. These findings reveal new dynamics behind scientific innovation and investment.

SUBMITTER: Jin C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8492701 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics.

Jin Ching C Ma Yifang Y Uzzi Brian B

Nature communications 20211005 1

Fast growing scientific topics have famously been key harbingers of the new frontiers of science, yet, large-scale analyses of their genesis and impact are rare. We investigated one possible factor connected with a topic's extraordinary growth: scientific prizes. Our longitudinal analysis of nearly all recognized prizes worldwide and over 11,000 scientific topics from 19 disciplines indicates that topics associated with a scientific prize experience extraordinary growth in productivity, impact, ...[more]

PMID: 34611161

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) awards prizes for outstanding work presented at their annual scientific meetings. The proportion of ESPR prize-winning abstracts to journal publications is not known. Contextualising abstract-to-publication proportions by evaluating publication experience can yield valuable insights and actionable outcomes to support researchers in overcoming barriers to journal publication.ObjectiveTo assess the abstract-to-publication proportion of prize-winning ESPR abstracts and prize-winning authors' experience of publishing in Pediatric Radiology, the affiliated journal of the ESPR and other specialist international paediatric radiology societies.Materials and methodsPubMed was searched for titles of ESPR prize-winning abstracts from 1977 (the year of first award) up to and including 2021, where the presenter was either first or co-author, and the article was published 2 years before or after the presentation year. If not found, a general internet search was performed. Titles of all retrieved articles were evaluated for inclusion. A survey was distributed to all ESPR prize winners to better understand their experiences around journal submission.ResultsOver 44 years, 108 prizes were awarded. The prize-winning abstract-to-publication proportion was significantly higher (59.3%, OR=2.10, P=0.012) than the recently published pediatric radiology "abstract to publication rate" (41.9% from 2013-2016). Moreover, prize winners were more than twice as likely than to achieve journal publication (OR=2.10), and as first author (OR=1.33). The majority of awardees published their work as first author (52/64, 81.3%): the first-author abstract-to-publication proportion was not significantly higher than the paediatric radiology "abstract-to-publication rate" (48.1%, OR=0.33, P=0.330). Sixty-four survey responses were received (59.3%, out of a total 108 awarded prizes). Just over 20% of prize-winning work was published in Pediatric Radiology, with 41.5% of respondents reporting a good to excellent submission experience.ConclusionPrize-winning and first-author abstract-to-publication proportions are higher for ESPR-awarded abstracts than the most recently reported paediatric radiology "abstract-to-publication rate", suggesting that prizes are either awarded to work most likely to be published or that being awarded a prize encourages publication. Given that just over 40% of prize-winning abstracts remain unpublished, the ESPR should do more to support and encourage all authors to publish their work.

Project description:The aim of this study is to reveal a robust correlation between the amount of attention international journalism devotes to scientific papers and the amount of attention scientific journals devote to the respective topics. Using a Mainstream-Media-Score (MSM) ≥ 100 (which we regard as an indicator for news media attention) from the altmetrics provider Altmetric, we link 983 research articles with 185,166 thematically similar articles from the PubMed database (which we use to operationalize attention from scientific journals). The method we use is to test whether there is a concomitant increase in scientific attention after a research article has received popular media coverage. To do so, we compare the quotient of the number of thematically similar articles published in scientific journals during the period before and after the publication of an MSM ≥ 100 article. Our main result shows that in 59 percent of cases, more thematically similar articles were published in scientific journals after a scientific paper received noteworthy news media coverage than before (p < 0.01). In this context, we neither found significant differences between various types of scientific journal (p = 0.3) nor between scientific papers that were originally published in renowned opinion-leading journals or in less renowned, non-opinion-leading journals (p = 0.1). Our findings indicate a robust correlation between the choice of topics in the mass media and in research. However, our study cannot clarify whether this correlation occurs because researchers and/or scientific journals are oriented towards public relevance (publicity effect) or whether the correlation is due to the parallelism of relevance attributions in quality journalism and research (earmark hypothesis). We infer that topics of social relevance are (more) likely to be picked up by popular media as well as by scientific journals. Altogether, our study contributes new empirical findings to the relationship between topic selection in journalism and in research.

Dataset Information

Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics.

Publications

Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets