Erratum: Do nobel laureates create prize-winning networks? An analysis of collaborative research in physiology or medicine (PLoS ONE 10:7 (e0134164) (DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0134164));Do nobel laureates create prize-winning networks? An analysis of collaborative research in physiology or medicine

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 7, 2015, Pages

  Wagner, Caroline S ^a   Horlings, Edwin ^b   Whetsell, Travis A ^a   Mattsson, Pauline ^c   Nordqvist, Katarina ^d  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Rathenau Institute KNAW   (Netherlands)

^c KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^d Nobel Museum   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARDS AND PRIZES; BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL CAPITAL; SOCIAL NETWORK; COOPERATION; MEDICINE; PHYSIOLOGY;

COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; MEDICINE; NOBEL PRIZE; PHYSIOLOGY;

EID: 84941992278     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136478     Document Type: Erratum

References (30)

1. Hollingsworth JR, Gear DM. The rise and decline of hegemonic systems of scientific creativity. In: Robinson A, editor. Exceptional Creativity in Science and Technology: Individuals, Institutions, and Innovations. PA: Templeton Press; 2013.p.25-52.
2. Klosik DF, Bornholdt S. The citation wake of publications detects Noble Laureates' papers. 2013: arXiv:1301.7471v1.
3. Jones B, Weinberg B. Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2011; 108(47): 18910-18914. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102895108 PMID: 22065777
4. Gingras Y, Wallace ML. Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Laureates? a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901-2007). Scientometrics. 2010; 82(2): 401-412.
5. Stephan PE, Levin SG. Age and the Nobel Prize revisited. Scientometrics. 1993; 28(3):387-399.
6. Garfield E, Welljams-Dorof A. Of Nobel class: A citation perspective on high impact research authors. Theor Med. 1992; 13(2): 117-135. PMID: 1412072
7. Garfield E, Malin MV. Can Nobel Prize winners be predicted? Proceedings of 135th meetings of the AAAS. 1968: Dallas, TX.
8. Zuckerman H. Nobel Laureates in science: patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. Am Soc Rev. 1967; 32(3): 391-403.
9. Manniche E, Falk G. Age and the Nobel prize. Behav Sci. 1957; 2(4): 301-307.
10. Weinberg BA, Galenson DW. Creative careers: The life cycles of Nobel Laureates in economics. Nat Bur of Econ Res. 2005; No. w11799.
11. Azoulay P, Stuart T, Wang Y. Matthew: effect or fable? Management Sci, 2013; 60(1): 92-109.
12. Borjas GJ, Doran KB. Prizes and productivity: How winning the Fields Medal affects scientific output. Nat Bur Econ Res. 2013; No. w19445.
13. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc of the Nat Acad of Sci. 2005; 102(46): 16569-16572.
14. Sher IH, Garfield E. New tools for improving and evaluating the effectiveness of research. In Research program effectiveness, Proceedings of the conference sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, Washington, DC. 1965; 135-146.
15. Price JD, Beaver D. Collaboration in an invisible college. Am Psychol. 1966; 21(11): 1011. PMID: 5921694
16. Zucker LG, Darby MR. Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proc of the Nat Acad of Sci. 1996; 93(23): 12709-12716.
17. Horlings E Gurney T Search strategies along the academic lifecycle. Scientometrics, 2013; 94(3): 1137-1160. PMID: 23420456
18. Blondel VD, Guillaume JL, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech: Theory and Experiment, 2008; 10; P10008.
19. Boyack KW, Newman D, Duhon RJ, Klavans R, Patek M, Biberstine JR, et al. Clustering more than two million biomedical publications: Comparing the accuracies of nine text-based similarity approaches. PloS one. 2011; 6(3): e18029. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018029 PMID: 21437291
20. Wren JD, Kozak KZ, Johnson KR, Deakyne SJ, Schilling LM, Dellavalle RP. The write position. EMBO reports. 2007; 8(11): 988-991. PMID: 17972896
21. Gurney T, Horlings E, Van Den Besselaar P. Author disambiguation using multi-aspect similarity indicators. Scientometrics. 2011; 91(2): 435-449. PMID: 22485059
22. Somers A, Gurney T, Horlings E, Van den Besselaar P. Science assessment integrated network toolkit (SAINT): A scientometric toolbox for analyzing knowledge dynamics. 2009. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
23. Wagner CS, Leydesdorff L. Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Res Policy. 2005; 34(10): 1608-1618.
24. Monge PR, Contractor NS. Theories of communication networks. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2003.
25. De Nooy W, Mrvar A, Batagelj V. Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Vol. 27. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
26. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature, 1998; 393(6684):440-442. PMID: 9623998
27. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 2009.
28. Burt RS. The network structure of social capital. Res in Org Behav. 2000; 22: 345-423.
29. Burt RS. Models of network structure. An Rev of Soc, 1980; 6: 79-141.
30. Whitley R. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. New York: Oxford University Press; 1984.