Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The hierarchical status of international academic awards in social sciences

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

International academic awards are not only compelling signs of personal academic excellence, but also play a significant role in evaluating the performance of institutions and countries. However, limited literature about awards in social sciences means that many major international academic awards are still unrecognized. Here we collect 180 international academic awards in eight subjects and gauge their relative reputations through online surveys. Moreover, we visualize the awards network based on the relative reputation scores and the number of co-awardees among them by using Gephi software. Finally, we adopt a statistical approach to analyze the structure of the awards network and find that the co-awardee frequencies follow a power-law distribution, which indicates that the awards network is a scale-free network. Our result suggests that a hierarchical status exists among international academic awards in social sciences, which may help us enhance the understanding of the Matthew effect in the academic awards system.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Source: Zheng and Liu (2015)

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Caprasecca, A. (2009). The contribution of star scientists to overall sex differences in research productivity. Scientometrics, 81(1), 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A. L. (2009). Scale-free networks: A decade and beyond. Science, 325(5939), 412–413.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311(3–4), 590–614.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the Third International ICWSM Conference, 8, 361–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (2008). Prize proliferation. Sociological Forum, 23(1), 1–27.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Information (International Social Science Council), 14(6), 19–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cainelli, G., Maggioni, M. A., Uberti, T. E., & De Felice, A. (2015). The strength of strong ties: How co-authorship affect productivity of academic economists. Scientometrics, 102(1), 673–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, B. G. (2007). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM review, 51(4), 661–703.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 32(3), 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Coupé, T. (2013). Peer review versus citations—An analysis of best paper prizes. Research Policy, 42(1), 295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, Y. (2011). Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network analysis of co-authorship and citation networks. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. (2006). Giving and receiving awards. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 377–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2009). Awards: A view from economics. In G. Brennan & G. Eusepi (Eds.), The economics of ethics (pp. 73–88). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2010). Awards as signals (No. CESifo Working Paper: 3229). CESifo. Retrieved from http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/46399.

  • Garfield, E. (2009). From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 173–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers/Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, M. L., Morris, S. A., & Yen, G. G. (2004). Problems with fitting to the power-law distribution. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 41(2), 255–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Tao, L., Lee, S. H., & Diesner, J. (2016). Evolution and structure of scientific co-publishing network in Korea between 1948–2011. Scientometrics, 107(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    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 

  • Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS: Journal of the History of Science in Society, 79(4), 606–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Updahyaya, K. P. (2011). From London to the continent: Ranking European economics departments on the basis of prestigious medals and awards. Economia, 14(2), 119–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. (1965). Networks of science paper. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redner, S. (1998). How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 4(2), 131–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, L. C., Rapini, M. S., Silva, L. A., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2018). Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 114(1), 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, M. (1972). Science as a cultural process. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Navarro, A. (2016). Research assessment based on infrequent achievements: A comparison of the United States and Europe in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prizes. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 731–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Katz, J. S. (2017). The scaling relationship between degree centrality of countries and their citation-based performance on Management Information Systems. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1285–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronda-Pupo, G. A., & Pham, T. (2018). The evolutions of the rich get richer and the fit get richer phenomena in scholarly networks: The case of the strategic management journal. Scientometrics, 116(1), 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlagberger, E. M., Bornmann, L., & Bauer, J. (2016). At what institutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-winning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from 1994 to 2014. Scientometrics, 109(2), 723–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, R. D., & Holdridge, G. M. (2004). The US-EU race for leadership of science and technology: Qualitative and quantitative indicators. Scientometrics, 60(3), 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The United States 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/.

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2013). Universities scale like cities. Plos ONE, 8(3), e59384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J. (1999). Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 493–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yair, G., Gueta, N., & Davidovitch, N. (2017). The law of limited excellence: Publication productivity of Israel Prize laureates in the life and exact sciences. Scientometrics, 113(1), 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, J., & Liu, N. (2015). Mapping of important international academic awards. Scientometrics, 104(3), 763–791.

    Article  MathSciNet  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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Fan Jiang & Niancai Liu

Authors
  1. Fan Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niancai Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niancai Liu.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 4.

Table 4 The response rates of reputation surveys of eight subjects
Full size table

Appendix 2: Listing of the 180 international academic awards in social sciences and their average reputation scores

See Table 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

Table 5 Twenty-one international academic awards in Business and Management
Full size table
Table 6 Seventeen international academic awards in Communication and Journalism
Full size table
Table 7 Twenty-one international academic awards in Economics
Full size table
Table 8 Twenty-eight international academic awards in Education
Full size table
Table 9 Twenty-five international academic awards in Law
Full size table
Table 10 Twenty-four international academic awards in Political Science and International Relations
Full size table
Table 11 Eighteen international academic awards in Public Administration
Full size table
Table 12 Sixteen international academic awards in Sociology
Full size table
Table 13 Ten interdisciplinary international academic awards in Social Sciences
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, F., Liu, N. The hierarchical status of international academic awards in social sciences. Scientometrics 117, 2091–2115 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2928-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2928-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation