IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v62y2005i2d10.1007_s11192-005-0019-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nobel laureates: Their publication productivity, collaboration and authorship status

Author

Listed:
  • B. S. Kademani

    (Scientific Information Resource Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre)

  • V. L. Kalyane

    (Scientific Information Resource Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre)

  • Vijai Kumar

    (Scientific Information Resource Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre)

  • Lalit Mohan

    (Scientific Information Resource Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre)

Abstract

Summary The application of the measurement of scientific and technical activities has been a lengthy process of the appropriate metrics and the assignment of the standards and benchmarks for their usage. Although some studies have addressed issues of the management of science and technology and their relation to scientometrics and infometrics, there is nevertheless a need to consider the linkages between the conceptual background of scientific generation and progress - and the measurement of its process and outcomes. This paper first reviews the three main approaches to the generation and progress of human knowledge in general and scientific activity in particular. These approaches are reviewed in terms of the demands they would make on the measurement of scientific process and outputs. The paper then examines the currently used categories of metrics, and arrives at several conclusions. The paper provides an analysis of these conclusions and their implications to the generation and utilization of metrics of science and its outcomes. The review of the conceptual or philosophical foundations for the measurement of science offers an in-depth examination, resulting in the correlation of these foundations with the metrics we now use to measure science and its outcomes. The paper suggests research directions for a much needed link between theories of science and knowledge, and the application of metrics used to measure them. Finally, the paper offers several hypotheses and proposes potential empirical studies.

Suggested Citation

  • B. S. Kademani & V. L. Kalyane & Vijai Kumar & Lalit Mohan, 2005. "Nobel laureates: Their publication productivity, collaboration and authorship status," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(2), pages 261-268, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:62:y:2005:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-005-0019-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-005-0019-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-005-0019-3
    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/s11192-005-0019-3?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yu-Wei Chang & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2021. "Do extraordinary science and technology scientists balance their publishing and patenting activities?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Antonio Fernandez-Cano, 2021. "Letter to the Editor: publish, publish … cursed!," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3673-3682, April.
    3. Ho Fai Chan & Ali Sina Önder & Benno Torgler, 2015. "Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2215-2235, December.
    4. Julián D. Cortés & Daniel A. Andrade, 2022. "Winners and runners-up alike?—a comparison between awardees and special mention recipients of the most reputable science award in Colombia via a composite citation indicator," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Yves Gingras & Matthew L. Wallace, 2010. "Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 401-412, February.
    6. Iván Aranzales & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2023. "Finally! How time lapse in Nobel Prize reception affects emotionality in the Nobel Prize banquet speeches," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 4089-4115, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:62:y:2005:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-005-0019-3. 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.