Skip to main content
Log in

Fame in the sciences: a culturomics approach

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Fame has multiplied in virtually all endeavors and has taken on many new forms, of which celebrity is only one manifestation. We have famous musicians, artists, writers, designers, architects, scientists, inventors, charitable benefactors, cooks, critics, fashion models, CEOs, and even economists. Although top scientists cannot compete with Harrison Ford for widespread visibility, they receive recognition from newspapers, scientific journals, peers and colleagues, graduate students, the next generation of scientists, and, occasionally, the general public.

Cowen (2000).

What is fame? Like energy of life, fame is an everyday concept that we all intuitively grasp but find extremely hard to define.

Aiden and Michel (2014, p. 89).

Abstract

Although scientists, like many other professionals, aspire to fame and recognition, research in the emergent field of fame and celebrity has as yet neglected to explore their fame trajectories. This study therefore uses the frequency with which scientists’ names appear in English language books between 1800 and 2000 to trace the fame of a large number of eminent scholars from different fields. The analysis suggests that, on average, fame grows substantially between the approximate ages of 30 and 50, at which point its growth slows before peaking at around 70. Beyond this point, the growth of fame is more volatile, although we observe no clear decreasing trend. In fact, fame grows again after scientists’ death, but with the fame of those born in the twentieth century exceeding that of their nineteenth century counterparts.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Notes

  1. For an excellent overview of Merton’s concept of visibility, particularly with regard to changing notions of visibility in science and their impacts on scientific fame, see Bucchi (2014).

  2. For an overview of the sociology of fame, see, for example, van de Rijt et al. (2013).

  3. This issue includes Baram-Tsabari and Segev (2018), Brodesco (2018), Bucchi (2018), Condit (2018), Fahy (2018), Gouyon (2018), Hansson (2018), Källstrand (2018) and Widmalm (2018).

  4. The scientist data set compiled by Bohannon (2011) and his colleagues is referred to as the Science Hall of Fame.

  5. These data come from Google Books and DBpedia, and both the entire n-gram dataset and DBPedia are publicly available online (Michel et al. 2010).

  6. See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fame.

  7. We recognize that these definitions—the Oxford Dictionary definition and the operationalization of the concept of fame by Bohannon (2011)—differ from that in Fahy and Lewenstein (2014) and Fahy (2015). These researchers suggest that fame extends beyond the inevitable consequences of great achievement to the point where the world becomes familiar with the scientist and his or her discoveries, and that scientific fame gives those holding its celebrity status added power within their scientific communities (Fahy 2015). Focusing on only the first portion of the definition in Fahy (2015) and Bohannon’s (2011) definition of scientific fame allows for application of the culturomics approach pursued in the current study.

  8. It has been noted, for example, that the Trump organization bought tens of thousands of copies of Donald Trump’s book The Art of the Deal (see https://lithub.com/8-notable-attempts-to-hack-the-new-york-times-bestseller-list/).

References

  • Aiden, E., & Michel, J. B. (2014). Uncharted: Big data as a lens on human culture. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, P., Stuart, T., & Wang, Y. (2013). Matthew: Effect or fable? Management Science, 60, 92–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Segev, E. (2018). Global and local ‘teachable moments:’ The role of Nobel Prize and national pride. Public Understanding of Science, 27, 471–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohannon, J. (2011). The science hall of fame. Science, 331, 143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G. J., & Doran, K. B. (2015). Prizes and productivity how winning the fields medal affects scientific output. Journal of Human Resources, 50, 728–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodesco, A. (2018). Nobel laureates in fiction: From La fin du monde to The Big Bang Theory. Public Understanding of Science, 27, 458–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M. (2014). Norms, competition and visibility in contemporary science: The legacy of Robert K Merton. Journal of Classical Sociology, 15, 233–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M. (2018). ‘The winner takes it all?’ Nobel laureates and the public image of science. Public Understanding of Science, 27, 390–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., Bodiuzzman, S Md, & Torgler, B. (2018a). Behavioral consequences of limited attention: The power of social cues, mimeo. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., Frey, B. S., Gallus, J., & Torgler, B. (2014a). Academic honors and performance. Labour Economics, 31, 188–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., Gleeson, L., & Torgler, B. (2014b). Awards before and after the Nobel Prize: A Matthew effect and/or a ticket to one’s own funeral. Research Evaluation, 23, 210–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Torgler, B. (2018b). Relation of early career performance to the probability of winning the Nobel Prize in economics. Scientometrics, 114, 1069–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., Önder, A. S., & Torgler, B. (2015). Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception? Scientometrics, 105, 2215–2235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., Önder, A. S., & Torgler, B. (2016). The first cut is the deepest: Repeated interactions of coauthorship and academic productivity in Nobel laureate teams. Scientometrics, 106, 509–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., & Torgler, B. (2012). Econometric fellows and Nobel laureates in economics. Economics Bulletin, 32, 3365–3377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., & Torgler, B. (2014). Time-lapsed awards for excellence. Nature, 300, 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., & Torgler, B. (2015a). The implications of educational and methodological background for the career success of Nobel laureates: An investigation of major awards. Scientometrics, 102, 847–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., & Torgler, B. (2015b). Do great minds appear in batches? Scientometrics, 104, 475–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condit, C. M. (2018). The character of scientists in the Nobel Prize speeches. Public Understanding of Science, 27, 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, T. (2000). What price fame?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahy, D. (2015). The new scientists: Out of the lab and into the limelight. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahy, D. (2018). The laureate as celebrity genius: How Scientific American’s John Horgan profiled Nobel Prize winners. Public Understanding of Science, 27, 433–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahy, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2014). Scientists in popular culture: The making of celebrity. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 83–96). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faria, J. R., Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Upadhyaya, K. P. (2016). Human capital, collegiality, and stardom in economics: Empirical analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 917–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P., & Kelley, M. R. (2003). Leveraging research and development: Assessing the impact of U.S. advanced technology program. Small Business Economics, 20, 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, K. O. (2007). The sociology of celebrity. Sociology Compass, 1, 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Gallus, J. (2016). Honors: A rational choice analysis of award bestowals. Rationality and Society, 28, 255–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Gallus, J. (2017). Towards and economics of awards. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31, 190–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, J. D., & Fish, M. (1991). Ranking of economics faculties and representation on editorial boards of top journals. Journal of Economic Education, 22, 361–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Treviño, L. J., & Mixon, F. G., Jr. (2009). Winning the tournament for named professorships in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 1843–1863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodell, R. (1977). The visible scientists. New York: Little, Brown.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gouyon, J.-B. (2018). From engaged citizen to lone hero: Nobel Prize laureates on British television, 1962–2004. Public Understanding of Science, 27, 446–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, N. (2018). What’s so special about the Nobel Prize? Public Understanding of Science, 27, 485–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J. (2016). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Källstrand, G. (2018). The image of the Nobel Prize. Public Understanding of Science, 27, 405–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., et al. (2010). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331, 176–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, F. G., Jr., Torgler, B., & Upadhyaya, K. P. (2017). “Scholarly impact and the timing of major awards in economics. Scientometrics, 112, 1837–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Upadhyaya, K. P. (2014). Eyes on the prize: Human capital and demographic elements of economics’ Nobel Prize and John Bates Clark Medal. Briefing Notes in Economics, 24, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (2004). Paul A. Samuelson. In W. Breit & B. T. Hirsch (Eds.), Lives of the laureates: Eighteen Nobel economists. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (2004). Robert M. Solow. In W. Breit & B. T. Hirsch (Eds.), Lives of the laureates: Eighteen Nobel economists. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Rijt, A., Shor, E., Ward, C., & Skiena, S. (2013). Only 15 minutes? The social stratification of fame in printed media. American Sociological Review, 78, 266–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widmalm, S. (2018). The Nobel science prizes and their constituencies. Public Understanding of Science, 27, 397–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 70–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. (1995). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank an anonymous referee for many helpful comments on a prior version. Ho Fai Chan and Benno Torgler benefitted from support by the Australian Research Council (ARC), DP180101169.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franklin G. Mixon Jr..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chan, H.F., Mixon, F.G. & Torgler, B. Fame in the sciences: a culturomics approach. Scientometrics 118, 605–615 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2975-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2975-4

Keywords

Navigation