↓ Skip to main content

FASEB

Is the Nobel Prize good for science?

Overview of attention for article published in FASEB Journal, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
139 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is the Nobel Prize good for science?
Published in
FASEB Journal, September 2013
DOI 10.1096/fj.13-238758
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arturo Casadevall, Ferric C. Fang

Abstract

The Nobel Prize is arguably the best known and most prestigious award in science. Here we review the effect of the Nobel Prize and acknowledge that it has had many beneficial effects on science. However, ever since its inaugural year in 1901, the Nobel Prize has also been beset by controversy, mostly involving the selection of certain individuals and the exclusion of others. In this regard, the Nobel Prize epitomizes the winner-takes-all economics of credit allocation and distorts the history of science by personalizing discoveries that are truly made by groups of individuals. The limitation of the prize to only 3 individuals at a time when most scientific discovery is the result of collaborative and cooperative research is arguably the major cause of Nobel Prize controversies. A simple solution to this problem would be to eliminate the restriction on the number of individuals who could be awarded the prize, a measure that would recognize all who contribute, from students to senior investigators. There is precedent for such a change in the Nobel Peace Prize, which has often gone to organizations. Changing the Nobel Prize to more fairly allocate credit would reduce the potential for controversy and directly benefit the scientific enterprise by promoting cooperation and collaboration of scientists within a field to reduce the negative consequences of competition between individual scientists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 139 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 49 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Professor 7 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 16 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 196. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2024.
All research outputs
#205,472
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from FASEB Journal
#55
of 11,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,367
of 209,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from FASEB Journal
#2
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,510 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 209,969 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.