Attention, please -- how innovations and Nobel Prize winners make it

May 04, 2011

"The rich-get-richer effect," is famous not only in sociology. It applies to the success of innovators as well. But if attention is paid only to people who are already at the top, how are scientific revolutions possible? A new publication investigating careers of Nobel Prize winners gives insight into this stunning phenomenon.

"Attention is a scarce resource in today's society," says Dirk Helbing, professor at ETH Zurich, and Bernardo Huberman, Director of the Social Computing Lab at HP, immediately adds: "We live in a world where is normal. Attention is precious. The money goes where the attention is. And often people are willing to trade money for the attention of others." Hence, understanding the laws of attention economics is a prerequisite of success.

As a new study of publications of Nobel Prize laureates shows, the same is true for scientific achievements. Success in science is measured in . That is, the more citations by others a researcher collects in important journals, the more acclaimed he is. In a sense, citations are for scientists what bonuses are for bankers, or, likewise, what applause means for artists.

Boosting Nobel Prizes

Information overload is known in science as well. The amount of publications exceeds by far the amount of what a researcher can read in his whole life. Additionally, scientific fields of research are usually dominated by a few outstanding scientists that attract most of the attention. In this almost hostile environment, how can unknown researchers bring about a ? How are groundbreaking discoveries feasible at all?

A recent publication by the teams of Dirk Helbing of ETH Zurich and Santo Fortunato of the Institute for Scientific Interchange (ISI) in Turin throws light on this matter. In their paper, the researchers investigate several million citations in the scientific area, references to Nobel Prize laureates in particular.

"Remarkably, innovations are able to overcome the rich-gets-richer dynamics," Helbing says. The explanation of this phenomenon is based on a new key parameter, the so-called boost factor. "Sometimes, a paper gets cited overwhelmingly often and thus overcomes the rich-gets-richer effect. We then see citation cascades," Helbing says. These papers are called landmark papers. The boost factor represents a powerful instrument in accurately describing the careers of researchers. Its peaks precisely indicate the landmark papers.

New Talents

Citations have become a widespread method to measure scientific excellence. For example, they are frequently used in academic recruitment procedures. Furthermore, they play an important role in university rankings and for the distribution of funds among scholars and scientific institutions. However, the boost factor proposed by the teams of Helbing and Fortunato goes beyond the indices that are commonly used in its sensitivity to identifying landmark events: The sharp peaks allow one to identify scientific breakthroughs and talents much earlier than through classical citation analysis. The authors propose that the boost factor could be used together with other measures to evaluate the performance of scientists.

Interestingly, the boost factor also shows that, when a groundbreaking paper receives abundant attention, the scientist's body of work overall enjoys a greater impact. A specific paper thus influences even the success of publications in the past. The benefitting pieces of work do not even have to be from the same area of research.

"Similar feedback effects are likely to affect the influence of a politician, or the price of a product," suggests Helbing. "Otherwise brands would not be so important."

A Self-organized Critical System?

Interestingly, the statistical distribution of the peaks of the boost factor looks like a power law. This suggests that the boosts may reach any possible size. "In fact, we observe everything, from small cascades that reflect quasi-continuous scientific progress all the way up to scientific revolutions, which change our perception of the world fundamentally," says Helbing. Nobel Prize winners, for instance, usually have a significantly larger boost compared to other scientists.

This power law behavior indicates that science undergoes phase transitions, where sudden systemic shifts occur. For example, new scientific concepts such as Quantum Mechanics or Einstein's Theory of Relativity may be understood as paradigm shifts. Furthermore, the scientific system seems to drive itself toward the tipping point, where citation avalanches occur on all scales. "It's only for this reason that innovations sometimes have a chance to overcome established paradigms," concludes Helbing.

Explore further: Power struggles, doubt all found in the Facebook of Egypt's revolution

More information: Mazloumian A, Eom Y-H, Helbing D, Lozano S, Fortunato S (2011) How Citation Boosts Promote Scientific Paradigm Shifts and Nobel Prizes. PLoS ONE 6(5): e18975. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018975

Related Stories

How to Spot an Influential Paper Based on its Citations

Jul 04, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- At first it may seem that the number of citations received by a published scientific paper is directly related to that paper's quality of content. The higher the quality, the more people read ...

Traffic control systems

Nov 15, 2007

Traffic flow accounts for as much as one-third of global energy consumption. However, unconventional changes in managing traffic flow could significantly reduce harmful CO2 emissions. ETH Zurich Professor for Sociology, Dirk ...

UCD scientists no 1 hot paper in Nature Medicine

Aug 20, 2010

A paper led by UCD scientists is currently the No 1 Hot Paper in Nature Medicine, according to Thompson Reuters. The paper has been cited almost 3 times more than any other paper published by the journal over the past 24 mon ...

UCSC ranked first in nation for research impact in physics

Feb 06, 2007

In a new analysis of research publications from top U.S. universities, the University of California, Santa Cruz, ranked first for the impact of its faculty in the field of physics and fifth in the field of space sciences. ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hush1
5 / 5 (1) May 04, 2011
Gentlemen. You have my attention as far and as long as the time this will take to say two words.

Grigori Perelman

Good Day.
To You.
mysticshakra
2.3 / 5 (4) May 04, 2011
In other words, science has become a popularity contest and any breakthroughs occur in spite of the system rather than because of it. Must be why we aren't making any progress in the real world. Other than the net and miniaturization we are still living in 1984, except now we pay $4.50 for gas.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2011
In other words, science has become a popularity contest and any breakthroughs occur in spite of the system rather than because of it. Must be why we aren't making any progress in the real world. Other than the net and miniaturization we are still living in 1984, except now we pay $4.50 for gas.


There is a limit to everything. Even if we had nearly ideal machines and nearly ideal food crops it would only affect our economics in a marginal way. In capitalism, the rich would STILL get richer and the poor would still get poorer, and circus clowns and atheletes would still make more money than people with real jobs.

If your automobile was an ideal machine, what would you get? 100 to 120 mpg. So maybe the price of gasoline would be like $0.80 right now by the time you also had fairy tale 100% efficient engines on the oil rigs and tankers and transports to move the gasoline, etc.

Even perfect technology costs something. Even "free" usually costs something.
eachus
not rated yet May 05, 2011
There is a limit to everything. Even if we had nearly ideal machines and nearly ideal food crops it would only affect our economics in a marginal way. In capitalism, the rich would STILL get richer and the poor would still get poorer, and circus clowns and athletes would still make more money than people with real jobs.


Um, no. First, the poor in the United States today enjoy luxuries that the rich of fifty years ago could only dream of. Color TVs and cell phones may be of questionable value, but improved medical care, safer cars, housing and air transport among other things are unquestionable goods.

Second, measured in money, the rich get rich faster than the poor. But measured in quality of life, the poor get rich faster. There is a point where more money cannot buy more quality of life, or even life. At that point you need to depend on scientific and medical progress, which raises all boats.
KBK
not rated yet May 05, 2011
Gentlemen. You have my attention as far and as long as the time this will take to say two words.

Grigori Perelman

Good Day.
To You.


recall he flat out stated something that effectively means he and his friends have solved the rest of the millennium problem set.

Understand that the majority of the truth is hidden from you, for if you knew, no control structure on your life could exist. You would have too much personal power.

Do you understand?

Wake up. Grigori's voice (however muted) is one of thousands saying the same thing. They are quietly trying to alert you that something is drastically amiss and gone astray in the 'what is the actual truth' game.