2
$\begingroup$

Okay the question is really soft. But I am wondering about the relationship between one's productivity (namely quality of papers, number of papers published) and prizes received.

So here is my question:

What is your opinion on the following statement: Mathematician tends to have their productivity declined after receiving major prizes. The amount of decline depends on the prestige of the prize awarded.

While I know there are fields medalists who published nearly nothing after receiving the medal, there are also plenty who continue to work vigorously. But in general, will one become less productive after receiving prize? Does the prize usually achieve its function as a stimulus?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ @CarloBeenakker Thanks for giving the link. I have looked at this paper actually, and I want to ask other's opinions about prizes and productivity. May I ask what do you think about this topic? Do you believe that productivity will decline after receiving prize? $\endgroup$
    – Rescy_
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 9:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ hmm, this paper from 2013 gives hard data, I added a graph; so what "my opinion" is seems moot, the data speaks for itself; I should emphasise that you ask specifically for "productivity", which can be quantified precisely; the answer might differ if you ask for "originality". $\endgroup$
    – Carlo Beenakker
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 9:34
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ In my opinion, this interesting question is more suitable for academia.stackexchange.com $\endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 9:37
  • $\begingroup$ @CarloBeenakker Ah, very good. I must have been blind ... $\endgroup$
    – Sebastian Goette
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 9:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Does the prize usually achieve its function as a stimulus?" While it was the original intent of the Fields medal to stimulate future work, to stimulate future work is by no means the purpose of all prizes (likely not even most or the majority). The question is thus based on a false premise. I vote to close among others for this reason. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 17:37

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11
$\begingroup$

Prizes and Productivity: How Winning the Fields Medal Affects Scientific Output (2013)

Knowledge generation is key to economic growth, and scientific prizes are designed to encourage it. But how does winning a prestigious prize affect future output? We compare the productivity of Fields medalists (winners of the top mathematics prize) to that of similarly brilliant contenders. The two groups have similar publication rates until the award year, after which the winners’ productivity declines. The medalists begin to “play the field,” studying unfamiliar topics at the expense of writing papers. It appears that tournaments can have large post-prize effects on the effort allocation of knowledge producers.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For some criticism of this article, see ams.org/notices/201503/rnoti-p224.pdf Note that the word "productivity" is a loaded one. If you measured Andrew Wiles's "productivity" (according to some quantitative definition) from 1987-1997 he would score low, and Perelman would fare even worse. But that is probably not what people intuitively mean when they talk about unproductive scientists. (Of course I'm not offering Wiles and Perelman as examples of the Fields medal encouraging future output, but as examples of the dangers of using the word "productivity".) $\endgroup$
    – Timothy Chow
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 15:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TimothyChow --- Thank you for this very relevant link. I certainly would not wish to imply that "productivity" is a proxy for "impact" or "influence" in any particular field of science, but its quantitative definition as "papers per year" seems quite reasonable (and the OP did ask specifically for "productivity"). Incidentally, starting this year the national research assessment in The Netherlands has dropped "productivity" as one of its criteria for an excellent research group. $\endgroup$
    – Carlo Beenakker
    Commented Nov 28, 2015 at 16:40

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .