Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Mapping of important international academic awards

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

International academic awards are popular as incentives and rewards for academics all over the world, and have played a significant role in the performance evaluations of individuals and institutions. However, little is known about the relative importance of awards and the relationships between awards. This study aims to establish a comprehensive global map of important international academic awards, which visually presents the relative reputations of awards and the close or distant relationships between awards. By surveying the reputations of the preselected 207 awards, 90 important international academic awards with above-average reputations were identified. Then, based on the number of “awardees in common” or named “co-awardees” between every pair of these 90 awards, a network of co-awardees was built. Finally, using mapping software of VOSviewer, these 90 important international academic awards were mapped by taking the reputation scores as the weights of awards and the network of co-awardees as the basis of the relationships between awards.

This is a preview of subscription content,log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This indicator measures the weighted number of faculty members of an institution who have won, in addition to the Nobel Prize and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, the following awards, medals, and prizes covering virtually all academic disciplines: Abel Prize, Balzan Prize, Charles Stark Draper Prize, Crafoord Prize, Dan David Prize, Fields Medal, Fundamental Physics Prize, Holberg International Memorial Prize, Japan Prize, Kavli Prize, Kluge Prize, Kyoto Prize, Millennium Technology Prize, Praemium Imperiale, Pritzker Prize, Shaw Prize, Schock Prize, Templeton Prize, Turing Award, Wolf Prize, and World Food Prize.

  2. By 1983, the name of Tyler Ecology Award was changed permanently to the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.

References

  • Best, J. (2008). Prize proliferation.Sociological Forum,23(1), 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2007.00056.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billaut, J.-C., Bouyssou, D., & Vincke, P. (2010). Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?Scientometrics,84(1), 237–263. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0115-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börner, K., Chen, C. & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. In B. Cronin (Ed.),Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 37, pp. 179–255). NJ: Information Today, Inc./American Society for Information Science and Technology. Retrieved fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aris.1440370106/full.

  • Charlton, B. G. (2007a). Measuring revolutionary biomedical science 1992–2006 using Nobel prizes, Lasker (clinical medicine) awards and gairdner awards (NLG metric).Medical Hypotheses,69(1), 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2007.01.001.

    Article MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, B. G. (2007b). Scientometric identification of elite “revolutionary science” research institutions by analysis of trends in Nobel prizes 1947–2006.Medical Hypotheses,68(5), 931–934. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2006.12.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, B. G. (2007c). Which are the best nations and institutions for revolutionary science 1987–2006? Analysis using a combined metric of Nobel prizes, fields medals, Lasker awards and turing awards (NFLT metric).Medical Hypotheses,68(6), 1191–1194. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2006.12.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(7), 1382–1402. doi:10.1002/asi.21525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1973).Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. (2006). Giving and receiving awards.Perspectives on Psychological Science,1(4), 377–388. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00022.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. & Neckermann, S. (2008a). Academics appreciate awards-a new aspect of incentives in research. Retrieved fromhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1319323.

  • Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2008b). Awards: A view from psychological economics.Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology,216(4), 198–208. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.216.4.198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2009). Awards: A disregarded source of motivation. In M. Baurmann & B. Lahno (Eds.),Perspectives in moral science (pp. 177–182). Frankfurt am Main: Frankfurt School Verlag. Retrieved fromhttp://www.rmm-journal.de/downloads/012_frey_neckermann.pdf.

  • Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2010).Awards as signals (No. CESifo working paper: 3229). CESifo. Retrieved fromhttp://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/46399.

  • Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers.American Documentation,14(1), 10–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2005). Academic ranking of world universities—Methodologies and problems.Higher Education in Europe,30(2), 127–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahassen, N. (2014). A Quantitative approach to world university rankings. Retrieved fromhttp://cwur.org/methodology/preprint.pdf.

  • Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science.American Sociological Review,22(6), 635–659. doi:10.2307/2089193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science.Science,159(3810), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P. F., & van Raan, A. F. (1993). Co-word-based science maps of chemical engineering. Part I: Representations by direct multidimensional scaling.Research Policy,22(1), 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping.Journal of the American Society for Information Science,50(9), 799–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternitzke, C., & Bergmann, I. (2009). Similarity measures for document mapping: a comparative study on the level of an individual scientist.Scientometrics,78(1), 113–130. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1961-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The US National Research Council Committee on an Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs. (2011). In Ostriker, J. P., Kuh, C. V. & Voytuk J. A. (Eds.)A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK83404/.

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007a). Bibliometric mapping of the computational intelligence field.International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems,15(05), 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J. & Waltman, L. (2007b).VOS: A new method for visualizing similarities between objects (No. ERS-2006-020-LIS). Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM). Retrieved fromhttp://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70981-7_34.

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,60(8), 1635–1651. doi:10.1002/asi.21075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping.Scientometrics,84(2), 523–538. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van Eck, N. J., & Wouters, P. (2012). The leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(12), 2419–2432. doi:10.1002/asi.22708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks.Journal of Informetrics,4(4), 629–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., & Okubo, Y. (2000). Shadows of the past in international cooperation: collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science.Scientometrics,47(3), 627–657. doi:10.1023/A:1005632319799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. (1992). The proliferation of prizes: Nobel complements and nobel surrogates in the reward system of science.Theoretical Medicine,13(2), 217–231.

    Article MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. (1995).Scientific elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Professor Jan Sadlak, the President of the IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence, and Professor Paul Wouters, the Director of Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University, for their useful comments and suggestions on this study. We also wish to thank CWTS’s researcher, Dr. Ludo Waltman and Dr. Rodrigo Costas, for their kind help in solving some of the mapping technology problems.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China

    Juntao Zheng & Niancai Liu

Authors
  1. Juntao Zheng

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niancai Liu

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toNiancai Liu.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Listing of the 207 international academic awards

See Tables 5,6,7,8,9.

Table 5 21 Awards in multidisciplinary fields
Table 6 36 Awards in life sciences and medicine
Table 7 63 Awards in natural sciences
Table 8 54 Awards in engineering sciences
Table 9 33 Awards in social sciences

Appendix 2

See Table 10.

Table 10 The response rates of reputation surveys in 16 subjects and fields

Rights and permissions

About this article

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Advertisement

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp