Current CX3mrnerits” EUGENE GARFIELD INSTITUTE FCR SCIENTIFIC INFORMATGW 3YJ1 MARKET ST PHILAOELFHIA, PA 19104

The 199Q Nobel Prize Winners: A Citationist Retrospective

Number 11 March 18, 1991

For more than a decade, we have devoted Before the awards were announced last essays to each year’s Nobel Prizes. These year, the biweekly newspaper ?% Scien- reports, usually published six months or tkt @ published a series of axticles in which more after the prize, have provided a unique Nobel Prize contenders were listed, based citationist perspective on the wimers. In ad- on citation frequency and predictor dition to identifying their most-cited works, awards.$7 One would think that with all of especially Citation Clussics ~, we have the non-Nobel awards that abound,g.g there highlighted work that has influenced key re- would be few recipients not in that category. search fronts.1 Nevertheless, this does occur km time to When pertinent, we’ve also listed the time. winners’ contributions to the review litera- One interesting aspect of this year’s ture. And+whe~ possible, we’ve contacted awards is the relatively low level of citations the Nobelists or close colleagues to de- for several of the winners. This could be due termine whether or not our data rein- to factors similar to those of the famous forced or contradicted perceptions of de- Watson and Crick paper in 1953,10 for layed recognition, as in the case with which they teceived the 1%2 Nobel Prize in Barbara Mc(lintock.z Her 1983 Nobel for physiology or medicine. It had been cited physiology or medicine may have been de- just under 1,100 times when we last studied layed, but she was widely recognized in the it.11This is an indication of obliteration by genetics community. In 1944, she was incorporation (a work so quickly becoming elected to the National Academy of Sci- a standard in its field that researchers feel ences. that it is unnecessary to cite the original ma- In the fmt issue of Current Contents o terial). In a sense, it is an honor to become (CC @’)this year, I announced hat our pub- oblitera@ as I noted in a previous essay.12 lication schedule for essays was changing to Even Tiw limes cbes not at- biweeldy.q Not only did this restructuring tempt to coverall the pri2es in one story, but reduce the space available for essays, it also perhaps the highlights of each recipient reduced the resources available to conduct called out below will prove interesting and extensive bibliographic research. So, in informative. keeping with this necessity, we have de- cided to provide only one or two brief ex- The Awards aminations of this year’s Nobel Prize win- ners, bearing in mind that access to the Officially, according to the will of Alfred Science Citafion hukx @, in print and elec- Nobel, prizes shall be awarded “...to those tronic formats, makes it convenient for read- who, during the preceding year, shall have ers to expand on our examinations, if they conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” are so inclined.4 Further. the monetarv awards are made from

41 the interest on the fund of his estate, appor- thesize complex molecules normally found tioned “...one part to the person who shall in nahsre--a system known as retrosynthe- have made the most important discovery or sis, where naturrd compounds are synthe- invention within the field of physics; one sized by fmt breaking them down into their part to the person who shall have made the basic parts rather than trying to build them most important chemical discovery or im- through trial and error. In addition to this, provemen~ one part to the prson who shall Corey developed computer modeling pro- have made the most important discovery grams to assist researchers in this process. within the domain of physiology or medi- A look at the citation record reveals that cine; one part to the person who shall have Corey was the 73d most-cited scientist for produced in the field of literature the most the years 1981-19887 and the most-cited outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; during that period. Among his and one part to the person who shall have many papers, Corey’s most-cit~ “Pyridin- done the most or the best work for fraternity ium chlorochromate. An efficient reagent between nations, for the abolition or reduc- for oxidation of primary and secondary al- tion of standing armies and for the holding cohols to carbonyl Compounds,”ld has been and promotion of peace congresses.”lq cited more than 1,600 times since publica- In addition, there also is the Alfred Nobel tion in 1975. Memorial Prize in economic sciences, insti- In a recent phone conversation with CC, tuted by the Bank of Sweden at its tercente- Corey noted that impatartt works can often nary in 1968. This is subject to the same be underrated by citation counts, using hk judging conditions as the Nobel Prizes and 1953 paper, “Prediction of the stereochem- provides a monetruy award equal to the istry of ct-brominated ketosteroids,”ls as an other categories. example. This paper, presenting work in stereoelectronics that is widely used today, has been cited only 85 times, probably due chemistry to its publication in a smaller journal. He notes that the work would have received a much higher number of citations had he also Elias J. Corey, Harvard University, Cam- published the information in a review paper. bridge, Massachusetts, received the chemis- However, he does not otlen write review try award for developing new ways to syn- pa~rs. Among the many key items in his bibliog- raphy of more than 7(X)publications, Corey feels that his 1989 book, The Logic of Chernicaf Synthesis,16 will be one of his most important. He has received numerous predictor swamis, among them the American Chemic- al Society’s Award in Pure Chemistry, the Wolf Foundation Prize for Chemistry, and the National Medal of Science. His Nobel award was clearly brewing for some time.

Physiology or Mdlcine

The prize for physiology or medicine was Elias J. Corey,Chenrishy shared by two pioneers in the field of trans-

42 E. DormoUThomas,Physiologyor Medicine Joseph E. Murmy, Physiology orMedicine

plant medicine-E. Donnall Thomas, Fred mic patients,”17was cited explicitly in more Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seat- than 250 papm since publication. Clearly, tle, Washington, and Joseph E. Murray, Har- the citation impact does not reflect the im- vard Medical School and Brigham and pact of his clinical findings. As a general Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. rule, clinical papers do not achieve citation Thomas is a member of the National Acad- frequencies equal to those in basic science. emy of Sciences and the recipient of, among Nevertheless, Murray’s citation history other laurels, the American Cancer Society’s shows that the sum of the citations to all of Award for Distinguished Service in Basic his papers is in excess of 1,600-an impres- Research, the Kettering Prize of the General sive total. Motors Cancer Resemch Foundation, the Thomas, on the other han~ was the 21st Robert Roesler de Villiers Award of the most-cited scientist for the period 1981 to Leukemia Society of AmeriW and the 1990 1988 and has been similarly ranked since Gairdner Foundation International Award. we began these studies more than 10 years For the layperson, the work of Thomas ago. As a matter of fact, his most-cited and Murray probably best illustrates paper, “Bone-mamow transplantation: Is Nobel’s desire that the awaml go to those the fn-st of a two-part review article, has who shall have “...conferred the greatest been cited in more than 1,280 papers since lmefit on mankind~ Naturally, it is impos- publication in 1975. sible to measure these benefiw easily. How- Thomas has been one of the most-cited ever, the work of these two laureates has authors for several decades. Had he received visibly benefited individurds, providing the 1990 Gairdner prima few weeks earlier, thousands with longer, more productive he certainly would have been included in lives. The Scientist’s list of “nominees.”7 Murray’s pioneering clinical work, includ- ing his 1954 transplant of a kidney between humans, opened the door to the seemingly Physics miraculous work that followed, including the work of Thomas on the transplantation The 1990 award for physics was shared of bone marrow. by Henry W. Kendrdl and Jerome L Fried- Murray’s most-cited 1957 article, “Pro- man, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, longed survival of skin homografts in ure- Cambridge, and Richard E. Taylor, Stanford

43 Henry !-VKendall,Physics JeromeI. Friedman, Physics Richwri E. Taylor Physics

University, California. Their experiments the Nobel committee, which we might do confiied the existence of quarks (the sub- by reviewing our research-front database.zl atomic particles that make up protons and The names of these 1990 physics prizewin- neutrons). This experimental work built on ners would stand out in the high-energy the theories of Murray GeU-Marm (winner physics researeh front devoted to quarks. of the 1969 Nobel Prize in physics) and George Zweig, Cafifomia Institute of Tech- nology, Pasadena. Economics Their classic 1969 paper, “High-energy inelastic e-p scattering at 6“ and 1w,” 19has The 1990 Nobel Memorial Prize in wo- been cited more than 265 times. In addition, nomic sciences was awarded to Harry E Taylor’s 1978 paper, “Parity non-conserva- Markowitz, City University of New YorlG tion in inelastic electron scattenng,”xo has New York, Merton Miller, University of been cited more than 420 times, making it Chicago, Illinois, and WiUiam F. Sharpe, the 12th most-cited paper from the journal . The award was given Physics Letters B. for pioneming work in the theory of finan- In addition to their publications, these cial economics and corporate finance-a three physicists received the 1989 W.K.H. departure from work previously honored in Panofsky Prize, named for their mentor— its more narrow focus and practical applica- the driving force behind “thecreation of the tions As noted by Franco Modigliani, Mas- Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, where sachusetts Institute of Technology, a colla- much of their work was performed. boratorwith Mdler and the wimer of the Were they likely choices for the Nobel? 1985 prize, the recognition of these three is None of the three physicists has been “the final seal of approval” for recognizing eleeted to the National Academy of Sci- “for the fmt time that finance is a major ences, though Kendall, of course, is quite a area of econornics.’22 “visible” scientist, as the chairman and a AUthree recipients are citation superstars, founder of the Union of Concerned Scien- based both on their most-cited papers and tists. on the sheer number of highly cited papem. If we were to attempt to predict prizewin- Sharpe’s 1964 paper, “Capitaf asset prices: a ners in physics, one way would be to Iist theory of market equilibrium under condi- discoveries not previously recognized by tions of risk.”~ has been cited more than

44 Harry 1?Markowitz, Economics Menon Millet Economics W!liam f? Shame, Economics

1,000 times since it was published in 1964 Paz has produced an influential body of and was the subject of a Citation Classic in work, including his poem Sun Stone,zgpub- CC, January 9, 1979.24 lished in 1957. This was inspired by the Miller’s most-cited paper, a collaboration Aztec calendar stone, with the poem’s 584 with Modigliani published in 1958 in the lines matching the 584 days of the American Ekonomic Review, ‘The cost of calendm’s cycle. This poem has brxn de- capital, corporation finance and the theory scribed by a critic as “one of the most im- of investment,”~ has been cited more than portant poems to be published in the West- 700 times. ern world.”zg Another major work for Paz Finally, Markowitz’s most-cited paper, was his I’he Labyrinth of Solitude: Life and “Portfolio selection:’~ has been cited more Thought in Mexico, 30 published in 1%1, than 415 times since 1952. Markowitz re- which is an analysis of modem Mexico and ceived the 1989 OR!WTIMS von Neu- the Mexican personality. mann Theory Prize in Economic Science. In my 1980 essay, “The 100 most-cited Based on citations and awards, these authors of 20th century literature. Can cita- economists were likely candidates for the tion data forecast the Nobel Prize in litera- prize. However, in an informal pool of 40 tum?”q1 I noted that p= was the smond economists, conducted last October, not one most-cited author of literature who was still was listed among the top three candidates.z7 eligible for the Nobel (only living candi- We only can assume that the Nobel wmmit- dates are considered), behind Jorge Luis tee selected a field that was long overdue for Borges, who died in 1986. In addition to recognition. this citation ranking, Paz also has received some of the world’s most significant awards for literature. Prior to the 1990 Nobel Prize, he received a Guggenheim award (1943), Literature the Cervantes Prize (1981), considered the most important award for literature in the The 1990 prize for literature went to Oc- Spanish-speaking world, and the Neustadt tavio Paz, the first Mexican writer to win the Prize (1982). award, for his “impassioned writing with We have never attempted to forecast the wide horizons, characterized by sensuous Nobel literature prize. Typically, the citation intelligence and humanistic integrity.” levels for literature candidates are quite low

45 until the authors become the source of sig- are low. And, it is this point I wish to stress nificant study after achieving some major in closing out this year’s overview. We con- recognition. In the case of the Nobel Prize, tinue to identify Imndreds of highly cited it is this event that causes an increase in authors worldwide, many of Nobel class, as citations. This is just the reverse of the sci- a reminder that the world produces an ex- ence awards where significant work gener- traordimwy array of original and important ates a large number of citations prior to the discoveries of benefit to mankind. Despite a award, and reeeiving the Nobel has very lit- proliferation of awards, local and intern- tle effect on the level of future citations.11 ational,an amazing number of impatartt dis- coveries are not publicly recognized. I%tce The quest for the Nobel Prize, as dramati- crdly portrayed by Carl Djerassi in Cantor k To complete the list of laureates, the 1990 Diletrana,32 can be a game of intrigue beset Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Mikhail with trials of timing, politics, talen~ and S. Gorbachev, president of the USSR, for luck. Ideally, though, it is a glorious cele- his efforts in bringing the Cold War to an bration of the creative genius and hard work end with his policies of opemess and re- of a select few. structuring. Unfortunately, recent events Somehow, for the small percentage of the may work to undermine both his efforts and population with an aptitude for scholarship, his credibility, as he has overseen the armed the scientific quest is fundamentally all that intervention in the independence move- matters, But, the need for recognition is a ments in the Baltic republics and reintro- universal motivation. Most scientists, how- duced press and media censorship. ever, find this fact of life somewhat embar- rassing. Conclusion *****

Since the world of science has produced My thanks to Mark Fitzgerald and Kath- thousands of Nobel-class discoveries in the erine Junkins for their help in the prepara- last 50 yews, the odds of anticipating those tion of this essay. the committees will deem most deserving 01991r9

REFERENCES

1, Gfield E. Dn Nobel Prize winners write Ckation Classics? Current Contents (23)3-8, 9 June 1986. (Reprinted in: Essays of an infomafim scienrim towardr scientograpJry. Phla&lphiz 1S1Press. 1988. Vol. 9. p. 182-7,) 2, ------. The 1983 Nobel Prircs. ParI2. Mytb or reality: premature diacove~ is nnt ttrcsame es beiig igrmrcd! Barbara McClintnck and !JKprize in wxlicine, Currenr Corm?rrfs(7):3- 10, 18 February 1985, (Reprinted irr Ibid,, 1986. Vol. 8. p. 60-7.) 3. ------l%e impact of citation indexes on birxhemists and sociologists-a survey by L, Hargens and H. .%bumrm.Pat 1. Methndnlngy, Current Contents (1)5 -12,7 January 1991. 4------. Annmmcing the SC1 Compact Disc Edition: CD-ROM gigabyte storage technology, novel snftware, and biblingmphic cnuplirrg make desktop research and discovery a reality. CurrerrfCorrtenn (22k3- 13, 30 May 1988. (Reprirrtcdin: ,%wry.sof an irrforrndion scietiim: science literacy, policy evaluation, and other essays. PbiJadelphix ISI Press, 1990. Vol. 11, p. 16070.) 5. Marteflo A. ‘Ikelve prolific pbysicistx likely 19%3Nnbci contenders The Scieruisr 4( 17) 16; 25-6, 3 September 1590. 6------. Scientists with the right chemisny to win a Nobel prize. The scientist 4( 18):16-7, 17 September 19$43. 7------. Which scientists might be honnred with the Nnbcl prim? 77reScienrisr q 19) 17-8, 1 Octnbcr 1990. 8. Garfield E The awards of science: beyond the Nobel Prize. Part 1. ‘h dctcnnination of prestige, CurrenrContents (4)5-14, 24 January 1983. (Reprinted in: Op. cif., 1984. Vol. 6. p. 17-26.)

46 9. ------The awards of science beyond the NnbrJ Prize. Part 2. ‘J’hewinners and their moat-cited papers, Current Crm@rts (50):3-12, 10 December 1984. (J&printed in: Ibid, 1985, Vol. 7, p. 405- 19.) 10. Watson J D & Crick F H C. A stmcture fnr tixyilxrae nucleic acid. IVaturE171:737-8, 1953. 11. Garfield E. The 250 mat-cited Citation Classics from the esaentird deca& 1955-196A. CurrwrtCorrrsrrrs (5):3- 15,4 Februsry 1985. @eprinted in: Op. cir., 1986. Vol. 8. p. 3749.) I2. ------The ‘obliteration phenmnennn’ in science-and the advantage of king obliterated! CurrerrtConferm (5 1/52):5-7, 22 December 1975, (Reprinted irx Ibid, 1977, Vol. 2. p. 3%-8,) 13. Nobel Foundation Directory, Printed in Sweden by Sturetryckeriet AB-Stnckhnlm 1989. 14. Corey E J & Sugga J W. Pyridinium chlomckmste. An efficient reagent for oxidation of primary and aecnndary abhols to carlxmyl cmnpnunda. Tetrahedrrrn Lets 1975(3 1h2647-50. 15. ------Predictimrof the stercochernishy of a-brnmioatcd ketostemida. Experiential 9(9):329-3 1, 1953. 16. Corey E J & Chertg X M. 7%slogic ofchenrical synthssis. New York Wiley, 1989.436 p, 17. IDsIIIeednG J, Couch N P & Murray J E. Prnlonged snrviwd of skin homogrrdts in uremic patients. Ann. N. Y Aard Sci, 64967-76, 1957. 18. Thoutaa E D, Stnrb ~ Cllff R A, Fefer A, Johnson I+ Nefman P & Lerner K G, Gluckaberg H & Bucknes CD. Bone-mrmow trenaplentatirm.N. ,%gf. J. Med 292:83243, 1975. 19. Bloom ED, Cuward D Ig DeStaeMer W Dreea J, Mflfer G, MO L W’,‘Wor R E, B~w3dMch U Frfedrnaa J L Hartmann G C & Kendall H W. High-energy imktatic e-p acattaing at & end 1(Y. Phys, Rev. Lets 23:930-4, 1969. 20. Prescott C Y, Atwood W B, Cottretl R L A, DeWmlAer H, Garwia E ~ Gadder A, Mfller R H, Rocheafer L $ Sato T, .%erdea D J, SincJrdr C ~ Stefn S, llryfnr R U Clenderdn J E, Hughes V W, Saaao N, Sehufer K P, Sorghhd M G, Lubelameyer K & Jentachke W. Parity non-conaeivation in inelastic ekctrcm scattering. Phys. Len. B 77:347-52, 1978. 21. Gartield E. ABCS of cluster mapping. Psrta 1 & 2. Current Contents (40)5-12, 6 October 1980; (41)5-12, 13 Gctnher 1980. (Reprinted in Op. cit., 1981. Vol. 4. p. 63449.) 22. Pmkeacb S. 3 U.S. economists win Nobel. New Yor&7inres 17 October 19$0, p. D]; D6. 23. Sharpe W F. Capital asset prices: a tlwory of market equihbrium under conditions of risk. J. Firwn 19:42542,1964. 24. ------. Citation Ckasic. Commentmy on J. Finarr. 1942542, 19M. (Srnclaer N J, comp.) Contemporary chrssics in the social and behavioral sciences. Philadelphia 1S1Press, 1987. p. 320. 25. ModlgUaai F & MUJerM H. The cost of capital, cmporatimr finsnce and the theory of invesbnent. Amez Econ. Rev. 48:261-97, 1958. 26. Markowitz H. Pnrtfolio sekctinn. J. Finan. 7:77-91, 1952. 27. Meaunotf M. Chicago ccmrmnist 3-1 favorite. L&4 To&y 9 Gctobcr 1993. 28. Paa O. SMIstone. (Rukeysm M, trmra.): New Directions, 1962. 29. Wakenutn J, ed. World authors, 1950-1970. New York: WIISCM.1975. P. 1112-4. 30. Paz O. T/IS labyrinth of solitude: Ife and thought in Mexico. New Ycwk Grove, 1% 1.212 p. 31. Garffeld E. The 103 most-cited authors of 20th century literature. Can citation date fotecast tk Nobel prize in literature? Currsru Contents (4]5-11, 28 Jsmrmy 1980. (Reprinted in Op. cit., 1981. Vol. 4. p. 363-8.) 32. Djeraad C. Contork dilerrrnm. New York Dmrbleday, 1989. 230p. (See also Garfield E. Cantor’s dilemma by Carl Djemasi: tlrrnugh fiction, the real wedd nf acicnce. Currsru Contents (47):3-7, 20 Novembex 1989.)

Editorial $dwhde Change 1 With the first issue of 1991, 1S1@implemented a schedule change in the front matter for Current Contents. @ Citation Classics ~ and the ISI @ Press Digest, including Hot Topics, now appear every other week. They alternate with either an essay by Eugene Gartleld, a reprint with an appropriate irmoduction, or an essay by an invited guest.

47