Google's PageRank Predicts Nobel Prize Winners

KentuckyFC writes "The pattern of citations between scientific papers forms a network that has remarkable similarities to the network formed by the web. So why not use Google's PageRank, the world's most effective search algorithm to rank these papers in the same way it ranks websites? That's exactly what a couple of US researchers have done for physics papers published by the American Physical Society since 1893 (abstract). The results make interesting reading because almost all of the top ten papers resulted in (or were linked to) Nobel Prizes for their authors. Which means that studying the up-and-coming entries on the list ought to be a good way of predicting future winners. Better get your bets in before the bookies get wind of this."

movie-star

[mmThe1]

Did the star make the movie a hit, or did the movie make the star?

For 'prediction' to be valuable, it has to work with citations that were linked *before* the paper got the Nobel.

Or: International fame = more hits to your paper

[taumeson]

Seriously, like this is some kind of weird correlation. No shit Nobel prize winning papers would have excellent page ranks.

It sounds to me like "predict" is the wrong word

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to say "predict," you have to look at only the citations that were made *before* the Nobel Prize was given. Otherwise, you're just proving that a Nobel Prize is a fantastic way to market your research.

winners bias?

[Glog]

Not having read the actual paper, the following question comes to mind: did they include only the period of time *before* the physicists got their Nobels? Because if they included the citations after that - yeah, I imagine those authors got quite a few citations being Nobel Prize winners and all...

In other news...

[hobbit]

Top 40 music singles chart predicts highest-selling singles of the week with astounding precision!

So Tired of Useless Tags

[pete-wilko]

Anyone else really get tired of the friggin tags for a lot of these stories? CorrelationIsNotCausation (this meme here really needs to go, saying it dosn't make you sound smart when it makes no sense or is bleedingly obvious) , and BecauseItWillGetGamed? GTFO. How the hell do you as a scientist game the entire specter of academic publishing to get yourself voted as a nobel prize winner, without you know, maybe actually doing some good science (and having it further recognized by being cited heavily by peers)? The tags are next to useless unless they are good as flamebait (yes am aware of the irony)