• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
• 2017-2021close
• Publications close
• Research data close
• Research software close
• Other research products close
• Article close
• Australian Research Council (ARC) close
• Scientometrics close
• Digital Humanities and Cultural Her... close

Following the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 disease, within less than 8 months, the 50 years-old scholarly literature of coronaviruses grew to nearly three times larger than its size prior to 2020. Here, temporal evolution of the coronavirus literature over the last 30 years (N = 43,769) is analysed along with its subdomain of SARS-CoV-2 articles (N = 27,460) and the subdomain of reviews and meta-analytic studies (N = 1027). The analyses are conducted through the lenses of co-citation and bibliographic coupling of documents. (1) Of the N = 1204 review and meta-analytical articles of the coronavirus literature, nearly 88% have been published and indexed during the first 8 months of 2020, marking an unprecedented attention to reviews and meta-analyses in this domain, prompted by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. (2) The subset of 2020 SARS-CoV-2 articles is bibliographically distant from the rest of this literature published prior to 2020. Individual articles of the SARS-CoV-2 segment with a bridging role between the two bodies of articles (i.e., before and after 2020) are identifiable. (3) Furthermore, the degree of bibliographic coupling within the 2020 SARS-CoV-2 cluster is much poorer compared to the cluster of articles published prior to 2020. This could, in part, be explained by the higher diversity of topics that are studied in relation to SARS-CoV-2 compared to the literature of coronaviruses published prior to the SARS-CoV-2 disease. (4) The analyses on the subset of SARS-CoV-2 literature identified studies published prior to 2020 that have now proven highly instrumental in the development of various clusters of publications linked to SARS-CoV-2. In particular, the so-called “sleeping beauties” of the coronavirus literature with an awakening in 2020 were identified, i.e., previously published studies of this literature that had remained relatively unnoticed for several years but gained sudden traction in 2020 in the wake of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. This work documents the historical development of the literature on coronaviruses as an event-driven literature and as a domain that exhibited, arguably, the most exceptional case of publication burst in the history of science. It also demonstrates how scholarly efforts undertaken during peace time or prior to a disease outbreak could suddenly play a critical role in prevention and mitigation of health disasters caused by new diseases. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-021-04036-4.

“COVID” which stands for corona virus disease, has become the world’s most infamous acronym. Previous analysis of acronyms in health and medical journals found a growing use of acronyms over time in titles and abstracts, with “DNA” as the most common. Here we examine acronyms in the pandemic year of 2020 to show the dramatic rise of COVID-related research. “COVID” was over five times more frequently used than “DNA” in 2020, and in just one year it has become the sixth most popular acronym of all time, surpassing “AIDS”, “PCR” and “MRI”. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

AbstractUsing data for 387 Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, or physiology/medicine from 1901 to 2000, this study focuses on the relation between the timing of prestigious awards and human longevity. In particular, it uses a linear regression model to examine how a winner’s longevity is affected by (1) the age at which the prestigious award is won, (2) the total number of prestigious awards collected, and (3) the delay between the Nobel Prize work and recognition. To alleviate estimation issues stemming from survival selection, we conduct our analyses using subsamples of surviving individuals and controlling for age-specific life expectancy. Our results suggest that receiving the Nobel Prize at a younger age is related to a longer expected lifespan (e.g., obtaining the Nobel Prize 10 years earlier is associated with an additional 1 year of lifespan compared to the average population life expectancy). The results also point to a strong negative association between the age of receiving major scientific awards and relative life expectancy, which further indicates the benefit of early recognition. Yet, we did not find evidence suggesting that thenumberof prestigious awards received at an earlier age correlated with longevity. Nor are we able to observe that the duration between Nobel Prize work and the award reception (waiting time for the Nobel Prize recognition) is associated with changes in longevity.

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.