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.

    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. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of Greece," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(4), pages 7-93.
    3. Enrico Spolaore & Romain Wacziarg, 2009. "The Diffusion of Development," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(2), pages 469-529.
    4. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the United Kingdom," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(3), pages 7-114.
    5. Adrian Furnham, 2023. "Peer nominations as scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1451-1458, February.
    6. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of Denmark," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 8(4), pages 7-125.
    7. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Ji Youn (Rose) Kim & Michael Howard & Emily Cox Pahnke & Warren Boeker, 2016. "Understanding network formation in strategy research: Exponential random graph models," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 22-44, January.
    8. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the European Community," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 8(4), pages 127-261.
    9. Flaminio Squazzoni & Elise Brezis & Ana Marušić, 2017. "Scientometrics of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 501-502, October.
    10. Baffes, John & Vamvakidis, Athanasios, 2011. "Are you too young for the Nobel Prize?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1345-1353.
    11. Ian I. Mitroff & Frederick Betz & Louis R. Pondy & Francisco Sagasti, 1974. "On Managing Science in the Systems Age: Two Schemas for the Study of Science as a Whole Systems Phenomenon," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 46-58, May.
    12. Miller, Michael G. & Sutherland, Joseph L., 2023. "The Effect of Gender on Interruptions at Congressional Hearings," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 117(1), pages 103-121, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Stanislav Avdeev, 2021. "International collaboration in higher education research: A gravity model approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5569-5588, July.
    15. Michail Kovanis & Ludovic Trinquart & Philippe Ravaud & Raphaël Porcher, 2017. "Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 651-671, October.
    16. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the United States," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(4), pages 95-200.
    17. Niccolò Casnici & Francisco Grimaldo & Nigel Gilbert & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2017. "Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(7), pages 1763-1771, July.
    18. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the Netherlands," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(3), pages 115-214.
    19. Liv Langfeldt, 2006. "The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 31-41, April.
    20. Heine Andersen, 2001. "The norm of universalism in sciences. Social origin and gender of researchers in Denmark," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(2), pages 255-272, February.
    21. David Karemera & Victor Iwuagwu Oguledo & Bobby Davis, 2000. "A gravity model analysis of international migration to North America," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(13), pages 1745-1755.
    22. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2005. "Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(2), pages 297-320, April.
    23. Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of Canada," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 8(4), pages 263-387.
    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. Houqiang Yu & Yian Liang & Yinghua Xie, 2025. "Understanding the sustainability of supply–demand in peer review system: an analysis based on scholars’ research and review activities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1547-1569, March.
    2. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.
    3. Sun, Zhuanlan & Clark Cao, C. & Ma, Chao & Li, Yiwei, 2023. "The academic status of reviewers predicts their language use," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    4. ederico Bianchi & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review [Reviewing Peer Review]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 791-800.
    5. Besim Bilalli & Rana Faisal Munir & Alberto Abelló, 2021. "A framework for assessing the peer review duration of journals: case study in computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 545-563, January.
    6. Siddarth Srinivasan & Jamie Morgenstern, 2021. "Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Review," Papers 2109.00923, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    7. Zhao, Zhi-Dan & Chen, Jiahao & Lu, Yichuan & Zhao, Na & Jiang, Dazhi & Wang, Bing-Hong, 2021. "Dynamic patterns of open review process," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    8. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & Scott R Glisson, 2013. "Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    9. José Cendejas Bueno & Cecilia Font de Villanueva, 2015. "Convergence of inflation with a common cycle: estimating and modelling Spanish historical inflation from the 16th to the 18th centuries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1643-1665, June.
    10. Lucas Rodriguez Forti & Luiz A. Solino & Judit K. Szabo, 2021. "Trade-off between urgency and reduced editorial capacity affect publication speed in ecological and medical journals during 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Louise Bedsworth, 2012. "California’s local health agencies and the state’s climate adaptation strategy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(1), pages 119-133, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Andreas Ortmann & Benoît Walraevens, 2012. "Adam Smith, Philosopher and Man of the World," Post-Print halshs-00756341, HAL.
    14. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    15. Betancourt, Nathan & Jochem, Torsten & Otner, Sarah M.G., 2023. "Standing on the shoulders of giants: How star scientists influence their coauthors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    16. Elise S. Brezis & Aliaksandr Birukou, 2020. "Arbitrariness in the peer review process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 393-411, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Marcin Kacperczyk & Philipp Schnabl, 2010. "When Safe Proved Risky: Commercial Paper during the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(1), pages 29-50, Winter.
    19. Pandelis Mitsis, 2022. "The Nobel Prize time gap," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Qianshuo Liu & David Pérez-Castrillo & Inés Macho-Stadler & Albert Banal-Estañol, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.

    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.

    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: 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.