|
 n anticipation of the Nobel Prize announcements for
2003, which will begin on October 6th,
ISI®, a Thomson business (NYSE: TOC; TSX: Thomson ISI), is revealing its own list of laureates—in this case Citation Laureates.
Citation Laureates have been cited so often in the last two decades that these scientists typically rank in the
top .1% in their research area. Not only do Citation Laureates have stratospheric citation totals, they also
typically write multiple high-impact reports, and do so over many years.
Numerous studies in the past three decades have shown a strong correlation between citations in the literature and peer esteem, often reflected in professional awards, such as the Nobel Prize. This should cause no surprise. Citations have been likened to repayments of intellectual debts, so persons who have accumulated such credits from their peers are often those whom these peers nominate for prizes and
other honors.
Eugene
Garfield has studied the correlation between high citation frequency and the receipt of prestigious prizes, especially the Nobel Prize. A review of several of these studies appears on his website:
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v15p116y1992-93.pdf
and http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v15p127y1992-93.pdf.
It is clear that the choices of the Nobel Committees are more complex than simply identifying highly cited or most-cited scientists. Generally,
a Committee looks for an area of research to recognize, and then identifies the key persons
responsible for the advance, even if the course of selection is determined by dossiers
on individual scientists nominated by their peers. As Harriet Zuckerman, the sociologist of science and author of
a fundamental study on this subject, Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States (New York: Free Press, 1977), has pointed out, "Every year, more scientists are eligible for Nobel Prizes than can win them." She continues: "This means that there has always been an accumulation of
'uncrowned' laureates who are peers of the prize-winners in every sense except that of having the
award" (see page 48).
Thus, in choosing our "picks" for the Nobel Prize in
2003 (or thereafter) we looked first at citation counts and at number of high-impact papers, but then, and secondarily, at discoveries or themes that might be considered worthy of special recognition by the Nobel Committee. In each of four areas—Physiology or Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, and Economics—we have made three choices. But as a supplement to this, and in
recognition of Dr. Zuckerman's observation, we are also providing extended lists of highly cited scientists in each of these fields. If one or more of our picks should win the Nobel
Prize this year—as one did last year when Thomson ISI made its
choices (see below) it is more luck than skill, but by focusing on the most-cited scientists we hope to, as it were, better our luck.
It is entertaining to look back on such attempts—to note their success and their failure.
In 1989, David
Pendlebury, in the pages of The
Scientist, drew up a list of 20 highly cited researchers who might win
the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. That same year, two of the 20
suggested names were chosen for the Nobel: Harold E. Varmus and
J. Michael
Bishop. In 1992, another name on the list turned up as a Nobel Laureate:
Edwin G.
Krebs. And in 1994, another choice of Pendlebury matched the Nobel Committee's selection:
Alfred G.
Gilman. Of course, while 4 were correct choices, 16 were wrong—or at least wrong to date.
In 1990, Angela Martello, also writing in
The Scientist, suggested possible Nobel Laureates using the same methodology. She named 12 researchers for the
Physics Prize and 10 for the
Chemistry Prize.
The Physics selections produced no Nobel Laureates in Physics, but one of the names selected—Alan J. Heeger
won the 2000 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. So, right person, wrong prize.
Her selections for the chemistry prize were more successful. In the same year, 1990,
Elias J. Corey won the Prize. In 1994, another
pick of Martello, George A. Olah, was honored. Then in 1998,
John A. Pople won the Nobel. Finally, in 1999,
Ahmed H.
Zewail, who had been mentioned as a younger Nobelists-to-Be, won the Chemistry Prize.
Again chemistry: In 1997 Pendlebury circulated by email a list of "ISI's 50 Most
Cited Chemists, 1981-June 1997, Ranked by Total Citations." This was subsequently posted, along with more extensive rankings, by
Professor Armel Le
Bail of
France. Of these 50, seven had already won the Nobel Prize. Since its release in 1997, four more became Nobel Laureates:
Pople in 1998,
Zewail in 1999, and
Ryoji Noyori and
K. Barry Sharpless in 2001.
Finally, high citation counts have proven a strong predictor of who may win the
Nobel Prize in
Economics. In 1990, in an essay for Current Contents entitled
"Who Will
Win the Nobel Prize in Economics? Here's a Forecast Based on Citation Indicators,"
Garfield published a list of
the 50 most-cited economists, 1966-1986, which was based on first-author
citation data only. This list contained
the names of 15 economists who had already been awarded the Nobel Prize. Subsequently, five more
went on to win: Ronald H. Coase in 1991, Gary S. Becker in 1992, Robert E. Lucas in 1995, Amartya Sen in 1998, and Joseph E. Stiglitz in
2001 (The 51st name—not published—was Robert C. Merton, who won the Nobel
Prize in 1997). Thus, 20 names (40%) on the Garfield list
have now won the Nobel Prize.
And so it was that last year, when
Thomson ISI offered its predictions in this same form, one of the
three choices for the Nobel Prize in Economics was correct. We
suggested that Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University and Richard H.
Thaler of the University of Chicago might win, as our imaginary
citation read, "for outstanding research in behavior and
decision-making that has formed a bridge between economics and
psychology." Kahneman won the Nobel, but Thaler did not. Vernon
L. Smith of George Mason University, in Fairfax, Virginia, won with
Kahneman instead. The citation for Kahneman’s half of the Prize
reads: "for having integrated insights from psychology research
into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and
decision-making under uncertainty." We’ll take this one as a
win.
In addition, Thomson ISI’s
predictions came quite close to a winner in Chemistry. One of the
three awards suggested last year was to Adriaan Bax of the National
Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, for, as our citation read,
"revolutionary advances in the use of nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) to reveal the structure of large proteins in solution." The
Prize went instead to John B. Fenn of Virginia Commonwealth
University, in Richmond, Virginia, and Koichi Tanaka of the Shimadzu
Corporation in Kyoto, Japan (one-quarter each); the other half went to
Kurt Wuthrich of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich
and of The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. In
claiming to have come close, we note the citation for Wuthrich’s
portion of the Prize: "for his development of nuclear magnetic
resonance spectroscopy for determining the three-dimensional structure
of biological macromolecules in solution." So, the citation data
led us to the right field but not the right person, at least as the
Nobel Committee saw it. In the description of Wuthrich’s research
mention is made of Bax, who in the 1990s contributed to the advance of
Wuthrich’s approach. We’ll take this as a near miss.
We failed completely in Physics and
in Physiology or Medicine last year, but we are retaining our choices.
This year, we are adding one new potential Prize choice in Economics
and in Chemistry, since the 2003 Nobel Prize will not go,
respectively, to the same person (obviously) or the same field as last
year. Also, we are adding the name Seiji Shinkai to one of our picks
in chemistry. Owing to a rapid rise in his citations, Shinkai should
be considered along with Stoddart and Whitesides in any prize
recognizing Molecular
Self-Assembly. We are particularly hopeful that one of our Physiology or
Medicine Prizes may hit this year, since recognition by the Nobel
Committee of work by Knudson, Vogelstein, and Weinberg as well as that
of Berridge and Nishizuka seems very long overdue.
Chemistry
| Economics
| Physiology or Medicine | Physics
| 2003 Nobel Opening Page
Return
to previous page
| View Nobel Prize
Picks for: 2002 | 2003
|
cites
:
