IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i2d10.1007_s11192-023-04921-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Universalism and particularism in the recommendations of the nobel prize for science

Author

Listed:
  • Byoung-Kwon Ko

    (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
    Daejeon Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation)

  • Yeongkyun Jang

    (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology)

  • Jae-Suk Yang

    (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology)

Abstract

From the viewpoints of universalism and particularism, this paper investigates the process of recommendation by focusing on peer review for the Nobel Prize for Science from 1901 to 1970. The results indicate that self-recommendation practices are routine, especially in developed countries, and that the recommendation network is fundamentally built on mutually beneficial relationships between countries. The analysis also reveals that political, economic, military, biological, and colonial factors irrelevant to scientific performance impact the recommendations. During the study period, the Cold War evoked severe tensions between the Western and Eastern Blocs and influenced recommendations on each side; political and military factors also played a role. The main findings imply apparent evidence for particularism, indicating the presence of bias in the recommendation process. This paper provides suggestions for improvement of the selection process for the Nobel Committee.

Suggested Citation

  • Byoung-Kwon Ko & Yeongkyun Jang & Jae-Suk Yang, 2024. "Universalism and particularism in the recommendations of the nobel prize for science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(2), pages 847-868, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04921-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04921-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04921-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-023-04921-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04921-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.