4.6 Review

The Uncertain Role of Nominations for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry†

Journal

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
Volume 29, Issue 36, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202203985

Keywords

award systems in chemistry; history of chemistry; Nobel foundation; Nobel Prize; nominations

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The solicitation of nominations has been the first step in the selection process of the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry since its inception in 1901. However, analysis of data from the Nobel Prize Nomination Archives reveals that nominations have not been the decisive factor in selecting the recipients of the award. Instead, nominations have served as a source of information for the committee, guiding future contenders and possibly influencing the selection through personal biases.
The solicitation of nominations for the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry (NPch) is and has been the first step in the selection process since the very first awards were made in 1901. The number of nominations solicited by and provided to the Nobel Committee for Chemistry supports the belief by the nominators that their nominations are meaningful. In this publication, we examine data culled from the Nobel Prize Nomination Archives for the period 1901-1970 of the variable role of nominations in the selection process for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The evidence is overwhelming that nominations, in general, during the 1901-1970 period have not been the deciding, overriding factor in the selection of the recipients of the NPch. Rather, we posit that nominations from the preselected nominator-pool have been a source of information for the Committee, used to suggest future years' contenders and possibly served as motivation for the Committee to seek nominations for specific nominees for future years. It is also clear that selections are often influenced by personal prejudices, for example, friendships, rivalries, and nationality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available