IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01241-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Julián D. Cortés

    (Universidad del Rosario
    Fudan University
    Woxsen University)

  • Daniel A. Andrade

    (Independent)

Abstract

The research agenda on global academic elites (e.g., those awarded the Nobel Prize) has overlooked academic awards and elites from developing countries and the public symbolic recognition of scientific elites by research awards. In this study, we examine the bibliometric features of individual researcher profiles of those participants who received a special mention in Colombia’s most prestigious prize in the sciences: the Alejandro Ángel Escobar Prize (AAEP). First, we chart the citation per article trend of Colombia’s most prolific researchers before and after receiving the special mention and the AAEP. We then compare the special mention group with those awarded the AAEP, using a composite citation indicator of six scientific impact and productivity indices to estimate (1) bulk impact (number of citations and h index) and (2) authorship order adjusted impact (Schreiber hm index; total citations for articles of which the scientist is the single author; total citations for articles of which the scientist is the single or first author; and total citations for articles of which the scientist is the single, first, or last author). Results show that there is no overall halo effect in citation per article after receiving the special mention or the AAEP. Such recognition comes after an academically productive career marked by multiple citations per article peaks. There is no clear-cut division between the composite citation indicator of those awarded a special mention and those awarded the AAEP. Findings place the profile of local authors in an adjusted and inclusive framework that takes full cognisance of the scientific elites in developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01241-1
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01241-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01241-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01241-1?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Heinze & Arlette Jappe & David Pithan, 2019. "From North American hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Aria, Massimo & Cuccurullo, Corrado, 2017. "bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 959-975.
    3. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2018. "The Google Scholar h-index: useful but burdensome metric," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 631-635, October.
    4. Richard Klavans & Kevin W Boyack, 2017. "The Research Focus of Nations: Economic vs. Altruistic Motivations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, January.
    5. Ángel V. Jiménez & Alex Mesoudi, 2019. "Prestige-biased social learning: current evidence and outstanding questions," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Michael Gusenbauer, 2019. "Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 177-214, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Blaise Cronin, 2001. "Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(7), pages 558-569.
    11. Confraria, Hugo & Mira Godinho, Manuel & Wang, Lili, 2017. "Determinants of citation impact: A comparative analysis of the Global South versus the Global North," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 265-279.
    12. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    13. Emilio Delgado López-Cózar & Nicolás Robinson-García & Daniel Torres-Salinas, 2014. "The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(3), pages 446-454, March.
    14. Jeff Tollefson, 2018. "China declared world’s largest producer of scientific articles," Nature, Nature, vol. 553(7689), pages 390-390, January.
    15. Ho-Chun Herbert Chang & Feng Fu, 2021. "Elitism in mathematics and inequality," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    16. Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras & Éric Archambault, 2006. "Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 519-533, September.
    17. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:12608-12615 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Jianhua Hou & Bili Zheng & Yang Zhang & Chaomei Chen, 2021. "How do Price medalists’ scholarly impact change before and after their awards?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5945-5981, July.
    19. Ho Fai Chan & Ali Sina Önder & Benno Torgler, 2016. "The first cut is the deepest: repeated interactions of coauthorship and academic productivity in Nobel laureate teams," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 509-524, February.
    20. Hugo Confraria & Manuel Mira Godinho, 2015. "The impact of African science: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1241-1268, February.
    21. Per Lunnemann & Mogens H. Jensen & Liselotte Jauffred, 2019. "Gender bias in Nobel prizes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-4, December.
    22. Caroline S Wagner & Edwin Horlings & Travis A Whetsell & Pauline Mattsson & Katarina Nordqvist, 2015. "Do Nobel Laureates Create Prize-Winning Networks? An Analysis of Collaborative Research in Physiology or Medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    23. Cynthia Lisée & Vincent Larivière & Éric Archambault, 2008. "Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: A bibliometric analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(11), pages 1776-1784, September.
    24. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2009. "Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 549-565, November.
    25. Vincent Larivière & Benoit Macaluso & Éric Archambault & Yves Gingras, 2010. "Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 45-53, March.
    26. Marek Kosmulski, 2020. "Nobel laureates are not hot," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 487-495, April.
    27. Yinyu Jin & Sha Yuan & Zhou Shao & Wendy Hall & Jie Tang, 2021. "Turing Award elites revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2329-2348, March.
    28. Samuel Bjork & Avner Offer & Gabriel Söderberg, 2014. "Time series citation data: the Nobel Prize in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 185-196, January.
    29. Caifeng Ma & Cheng Su & Junpeng Yuan & Yishan Wu, 2012. "Papers written by Nobel Prize winners in physics before they won the prize: an analysis of their language and journal of publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 1151-1163, December.
    30. Juntao Zheng & Niancai Liu, 2015. "Mapping of important international academic awards," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 763-791, September.
    31. Zhiwei Zhou & Rui Xing & Jing Liu & Feiyue Xing, 2014. "Landmark papers written by the Nobelists in physics from 1901 to 2012: a bibliometric analysis of their citations and journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 329-338, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jianhua Hou & Bili Zheng & Yang Zhang & Chaomei Chen, 2021. "How do Price medalists’ scholarly impact change before and after their awards?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5945-5981, July.
    2. Elisabeth Maria Schlagberger & Lutz Bornmann & Johann Bauer, 2016. "At what institutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-winning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from 1994 to 2014," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 723-767, November.
    3. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    6. Bilal Barış Alkan & Leyla Karakuş & Bekir Direkci, 2023. "Knowledge discovery from the texts of Nobel Prize winners in literature: sentiment analysis and Latent Dirichlet Allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5311-5334, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Gordana Budimir & Sophia Rahimeh & Sameh Tamimi & Primož Južnič, 2021. "Comparison of self-citation patterns in WoS and Scopus databases based on national scientific production in Slovenia (1996–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2249-2267, March.
    9. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    10. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    11. Corbet, Shaen & Dowling, Michael & Gao, Xiangyun & Huang, Shupei & Lucey, Brian & Vigne, Samuel A., 2019. "An analysis of the intellectual structure of research on the financial economics of precious metals," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Sichao Tong & Per Ahlgren, 2017. "Evolution of three Nobel Prize themes and a Nobel snub theme in chemistry: a bibliometric study with focus on international collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 75-90, July.
    13. Eungi Kim & Eun Sil Kim, 2020. "A critical examination of international research conducted by North Korean authors: Increasing trends of collaborative research between China and North Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 429-450, July.
    14. John P A Ioannidis & Ioana-Alina Cristea & Kevin W Boyack, 2020. "Work honored by Nobel prizes clusters heavily in a few scientific fields," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-11, July.
    15. Pandelis Mitsis, 2022. "The Nobel Prize time gap," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 430-435.
    17. Wen Lou & Jiangen He & Lingxin Zhang & Zhijie Zhu & Yongjun Zhu, 2023. "Support behind the scenes: the relationship between acknowledgement, coauthor, and citation in Nobel articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5767-5790, October.
    18. Jingda Ding & Yifan Chen & Chao Liu, 2023. "Exploring the research features of Nobel laureates in Physics based on the semantic similarity measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5247-5275, September.
    19. Gabriel Alves Vieira & Jacqueline Leta, 2024. "biblioverlap: an R package for document matching across bibliographic datasets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4513-4527, July.
    20. Julián D. Cortés, 2022. "Identifying the dissension in management and business research in Latin America and the Caribbean via co-word analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7111-7125, December.

    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:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01241-1. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: https://www.nature.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.