Identification of scientists making long‐term, high‐impact contributions, with notes on their methods of working

Abstract

Abstract A two decade (1958–1978) study was made of 40 male scientists, including four Nobel Prize winners. Multiple psychological tests were administered, along with interviews and analysis of publication rates and citations. The data yielded two factors that had very high predictive ability for identifying long‐term, high‐impact investigators: a series of five or more high‐impact papers published by the age of 45 accompanied by simultaneous involvement in research in several areas. Scientists meeting these criteria all went on to produce high‐impact papers into their late‐50s and 60s, whereas the other scientists in the study did not. Other factors, such as number of publications, membership in the National Academy of Sciences, and the award of a Nobel Prize were not significantly predictive of continued impact. Thus, previous impact should not be used as a basis for further funding independent of other measures. Methods of working peculiar to long‐term, high‐impact individuals, such as frequent changes in the focus of their research, working on several problems simultaneously, and abhorrence of administrative duties, are also examined in light of Gruber's concept of networks of enterprise. The common preconceptions that a scientist's best work is done by the age of 40 and that productivity and creativity decline necessarily thereafter are shown to be common but unnecessary concomitants of aging. Possible reasons for exceptional cases are discussed.