Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 104, Issue 3, pp 763–791 | Cite as

Mapping of important international academic awards

  • Juntao Zheng
  • Niancai Liu
Article

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.

Keywords

International academic award Reputation survey Co-awardees Mapping 

Notes

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.

References

  1. Best, J. (2008). Prize proliferation. Sociological Forum, 23(1), 1–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2007.00056.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aris.1440370106/full.
  4. 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.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frey, B. S. & Neckermann, S. (2008a). Academics appreciate awards-a new aspect of incentives in research. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1319323.
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 from http://www.rmm-journal.de/downloads/012_frey_neckermann.pdf.
  13. Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2010). Awards as signals (No. CESifo working paper: 3229). CESifo. Retrieved from http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/46399.
  14. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2005). Academic ranking of world universities—Methodologies and problems. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mahassen, N. (2014). A Quantitative approach to world university rankings. Retrieved from http://cwur.org/methodology/preprint.pdf.
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK83404/.
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70981-7_34.
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zuckerman, H. (1992). The proliferation of prizes: Nobel complements and nobel surrogates in the reward system of science. Theoretical Medicine, 13(2), 217–231.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zuckerman, H. (1995). Scientific elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations