Study On The Collaboration Of Scientific Papers Among Nobel Prize Laureates In Physiology Or Medicine

PurposeThis study is to make an investigation on the collaboration of scientific papers of theNobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine between1901and2012usingscientometric and social network analysis methods in order to reveal the pattern ofthe collaboration among the top-rank biomedical scientists and to provide referencesfor biomedical science and technology management decision making and for thecultivation of the first-rate innovative scientists.ObjectsThe scientific papers of201Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicinebetween1901and2012.Sources of InformationThe original data of this study were collected from the following sources.1. The official website of the Nobel Prize: http://nobelprize.org/.2. Science Citation Index (SCI) web of Knowledge database (1900-2012) ofThomson routers.3. Books, journals, and other publications on the Nobel Prize laureates inphysiology or medicine.4. Personal home pages of the involved laureates.Methods1. Literature study: including both paper and electronic publications. 2. Scientometric analysis: statistical approaches and scientometric indexes wereused in the study to analyze the collaboration of scientific papers of the NobelPrize laureates in physiology or medicine3. Social network analysis: Bibexcel was used to generate co-occurrence file of theauthors, organizations, nations and disciplines appeared in the scientific papersof the Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine. then Gephi was adoptedto construct their networks and to calculate related indexes of centrality in orderto make the analysis.Results1. The total number of scientific papers from Nobel physiology or medicine Prizelaureates was39993,32885of them are co-authored, according for82.3%of thetotal number. laureates’ average was71%;their average was3.32; the scientificpaper with the most authors included282coauthors.2. Laureates’ DC after winning the award had no significant difference comparedto before winning it while their CI had. their DC, CI and h-index werestatistically correlated.3.76%of the Nobel physiology or medicine Prize laureates were directly orindirectly connected through the network of co-authored scientific papers butmostly tended to frequently collaborate with few others. the network formed bylaureates revealed the characteristic of the "small world", it contained a fewclosely related groups and the largest collaborative group was a27-coregroupuscule.4. Among the network formed by organizations appeared in the collaborativeactivities of the Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine, almost all coreactors were well-known universities from the US. 5. Laureates’ scientific papers were mainly in the form of internationalcollaboration, the rate reached42%between2010and2012and kept increasing.the US was the main collaborators of other countries. the closer a country was tothe US, the higher its technology strength was. China was included in a7coregroupuscule, it closely collaborated with7countries, among which US was itsmain collaborator.6. Interdisciplinary scientific papers of the laureates increased by year, theproportion remained around30%since the80’s in20th century.Conclusion1. The higher the laureates’ collaboration level, the better their scientific output.they had diverse collaboration modes. their inter-institutional and internationalscientific collaboration was normalized. the core institutions were mostlyfamous universities of the USA, and the USA was the world centre of scientificcollaboration.2. The Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine co-author network had thecharacteristic of the "small world", illustrated that most of them kept very closecollaborative relationship with few collaborators; biomedicine and cell biologywas the basic discipline among biomedical science, and many disciplines tied toit formed the most essential knowledge structure of the laureates.3. Most of the Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine were either directlyor indirectly connected to each other. there might be many future Nobel Prizelaureates in physiology or medicine among their collaborators.Enlightenments1. Strengthen the international cultivation of collaborative and innovative typescientific talents and teams.2. Strengthen the collaboration between high-level innovative scientists 3. Attach importance to the basic role of the popular disciplines in scientificactivities.Innovations1. This study analyzed the scientific collaboration of Nobel Prize laureates inphysiology or medicine from an angle of co-authorship.2. This study used social network analysis methods to construct and analyze thecollaboration networks of authors, organizations, nations and disciplines in thescientific papers of the Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine.Suggestions for further study1. It is important to continually carry out researches regarding the collaboration ofthe Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine. although this studyanalyzed the collaboration of the laureates from an angle of co-authorship, itwas not comprehensive enough to generalize the collaboration patterns of theirscientific activities; therefore, it was necessary to adopt other quantifiableinformation such as their science projects to conduct further research.2. Conduct comparisons between the influential biomedical scientists from Chinaand the Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine from the perspective ofscientific collaboration in order to validate their similarities and differences.