The Colombian scientific elite—Science mapping and a comparison with Nobel Prize laureates using a composite citation indicator

Abstract

A well-established agenda on the research output, impact, and structure of global scientific elites such as Nobel Prize laureates has generated interest in the scientific elites from developing countries. However, this topic has not been investigated in detail. This study, first, deploys science mapping techniques to provide a comprehensive analysis of the output, impact, and structure of the Colombian scientific elite, i.e., researchers awarded with the Alejandro Ángel Escobar Foundation National Prize 1990–2020, known locally as the Colombian Nobel. Second, we conducted a productivity and impact comparison between the Colombian scientific elite and Nobel Prize laureates in science and economics by means of a stratified random sample 1990–2020 via the composite citation indicator proposed by Ioannidis et al. Findings showed that the Colombian scientific elite has a broader agenda than indexing titles in internationally renowned bibliographic databases. The Colombian scientific elite also showed positive growth, which is an inverse trend compared with the sample of Nobel laureate productivity. There were no noticeable changes in productivity/impact before and after receiving the Alejandro Ángel Escobar Foundation National Prize. Institutional collaboration within the Colombian scientific elite displayed the highest betweenness (brokerage) role of world/local top-tier universities. However, only two Colombian scientific elite members published an article with two Nobel Prize laureates. Most of the research profiles reflected the national output priorities, but were found to diverge from the national focus in respect of strategic research capacities. The interleaving of the Colombian scientific elite and Nobel Prize laureates—particularly between the 3rd and 2nd quartiles—enabled a more nuanced analysis of the local impact in the global scientific landscape. Our findings also contrast with previous findings on the lower research impact of authors from Latin America, despite their involvement as contributors to reputable journals, and also shed light on the research performance-impact standards and agenda between the global North and South and provide an in-context assessment of outstanding local research.

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

“…The special mention and AAEP cases examined produced no overall push effect in citation per article for either the sCSE or the CSE; recognition came after a career marked by multiple citation per article peaks-despite some cases in which researchers experienced their highest citation per article peak after receiving the AAEP such as Rey or Vélez in PhySci or Castillejo in SoSci. In contrast, inprogress findings show disparate citations per article trends for the CSE (Cortés and Andrade, 2022), i.e., CSE researchers received the AAEP a number of years before their first peak, some at their peak, and others after their most significant peaks. Research shows that Nobel laureates receive the award at their career peak, followed by a brief halo effect (Thorndike, 1920;Gingras and Wallace, 2010).…”

“…The sCSE do not have a high publication profile in internationally recognised bibliographic databases since only 31% have published at least two articles indexed in Scopus. The CSE also shares this feature: only ~47% of the complete list have at least two documents indexed in Scopus (Cortés and Andrade, 2022). This reflects the AAEP's inclusiveness: accepting not only research articles indexed in international indexing systems but also M.Sc.…”

“…One of the most important differences between the AAEP and other scientific elite awards, such as the Nobel Prize or the Fields Medal, is that the researchers submit their work to be considered a nominee for the AAEP-not the case for the last two prizes. Yet, despite these criteria of self-nomination and openness to both junior to senior researchers, thirty-one per cent of the AAEP awardees have completed an academic degree in the US and 28% a PhD in reputable universities such as Harvard, MIT, Yale, or Wisconsin-Madison (Cortés and Andrade, 2022). Further, 27.6% have completed a degree in an elite public or private institutions in Colombia, such as Nacional, Antioquia, Valle, or Los Andes (Cortés and Andrade, 2022).…”

“…Yet, despite these criteria of self-nomination and openness to both junior to senior researchers, thirty-one per cent of the AAEP awardees have completed an academic degree in the US and 28% a PhD in reputable universities such as Harvard, MIT, Yale, or Wisconsin-Madison (Cortés and Andrade, 2022). Further, 27.6% have completed a degree in an elite public or private institutions in Colombia, such as Nacional, Antioquia, Valle, or Los Andes (Cortés and Andrade, 2022). It supports the findings that top-tier institutions generate the most output and impact in several fields and affiliations with global and local scientific elites (Morgan et al, 2018).…”

“…This information will enable research evaluation organisations and individuals in developing countries to make an informed decision as to whether local scientific semi-elites or even non-elite researchers are significantly different (Li et al, 2019b). On a minor note, the research output, impact, and structure of the CSE its been discussed elsewhere (Cortés and Andrade, 2022). Following this introduction, section "Research background" presents the research background, followed by section "Methodology and materials" with methodology and materials.…”