Papers written by Nobel Prize winners in physics before they won the prize: an analysis of their language and journal of publication

Research output on Lavender, 2008–2012

“…Various studies have also ascertained the dominance of English language as communicative medium in other fields [38][39][40][41][42][43]. The universal acceptance of English as the research communication language has fairly minimized the problem of language barrier for the free flow of information.…”

“…English as a dominant language in the research world has also been acknowledged through number of studies[38,[39][40][41][42][43].…”

Research funding and citations in papers of Nobel Laureates in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, 2019-2020

“…This study also reveals that path-breaking contributions in physics are published in journals regardless of having a high impact factor. Ma et al (2012) show that the papers of Nobel Laureates (e.g., in physics) have been published mainly in journals of their own country and of the USA. Kosmulski (2020) analyzes the contributions of about 100 Nobel laureates in chemistry, economy, medicine, and physics from 2010 to 2019 and reveals that 32 Nobel laureates were in top 6,000 scientists considering the Hirsch (H) index, whereas 17 Nobel laureates were among the 6,000 highly cited researchers, 4 Nobel laureates were in top 6,000 scientists considering the number of papers, and finally only 2 Nobel laureates were in top 6,000 scientists based on the number of highly cited papers.…”

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

“…From 2010 on, the scientific elite category was enlarged to encompass other highly reputable awards—in developing countries, however, scientific awards have been sidelined. Research topics on Nobel laureates have included: regularities and tendencies (e.g., the time interval between discovery and recognition, document characteristics, or pre-Nobel resistance within the scientific community to the idea of such a prize) (Karazija and Momkauskaite, 2004 ; Campanario, 2009 ; Ma et al, 2012 ; Li et al, 2019b ; Bjørk, 2020 ; Sebastian and Chen, 2021 ); productivity, collaboration, impact-citation, and research field structures (Kademani et al, 2005 ; Bjork et al, 2014 ; Wagner et al, 2015 ; Chan et al, 2016 ; Ioannidis et al, 2020 ; Kosmulski, 2020 ); gender bias (Lunnemann et al, 2019 ); and the appearance on the Nobel podium of scientists from the developing world (Heinze et al, 2019 )…”

“…From 2010 on, the scientific elite category was enlarged to encompass other highly reputable awards-in developing countries, however, scientific awards have been sidelined. Research topics on Nobel laureates have included: regularities and tendencies (e.g., the time interval between discovery and recognition, document characteristics, or pre-Nobel resistance within the scientific community to the idea of such a prize) (Karazija and Momkauskaite, 2004;Campanario, 2009;Ma et al, 2012;Li et al, 2019b;Bjørk, 2020;Sebastian and Chen, 2021); productivity, collaboration, impact-citation, and research field structures (Kademani et al, 2005;Bjork et al, 2014;Wagner et al, 2015;Chan et al, 2016;Ioannidis et al, 2020;Kosmulski, 2020); gender bias (Lunnemann et al, 2019); and the appearance on the Nobel podium of scientists from the developing world (Heinze et al, 2019) Related research on scientific elites, focused on identifying elite scientists outside the US (i.e., Canada) (Larivière et al, 2010), map other renowned international awards (e.g., The Royal Medal; Max Planck; Darwin Medal), their relationships, genealogicalauthorship networks, and how it can predict future breakthroughs in science (Zheng and Liu, 2015;Ma and Uzzi, 2018). More recent research has adopted the Zuckerman approach but applied it specifically to awards other than the Nobel, such as the Turing Award and the Fields Medal (Chang and Fu, 2021;Jin et al, 2021).…”