The weather beavers have been more like weather trolls lately, or whichever nasty little creature that thunder and lightning is blamed on in somebody’s mythology. The nastiness has not yet set in this morning but I have a suspicion that all that is needed is some waiting and it will arrive.
On the matter of nasty trolls, I ran across an article about the statistics of publication by nobel laureates. [Link] It seems they have more difficulty getting published after the award than before.
“While their work is still successful, laureates find their later work doesn’t get the same level of attention and acceptance as their earlier work.”
I can honestly say this doesn’t surprise me although not for the reasons cited.
“For one, the more prestigious journals may not want to publish more articles on the Nobel winning idea, figuring the new work is too related to what has already been published.”
The reasons I would offer have to do with scientists, not science per se. I base this on my experience as a reviewer and serving on editorial committees. One of the primary concerns of refereed journals is to maintain an actuality as well as a perception of integrity. Hence, manuscripts submitted by Nobel laureates are going to be subjected to more scrutiny rather than less, as would be the situation in less rigorous disciplines.
On the reviewer side, it is also harder for the author. Many reviewers of my acquaintance decline to review manuscripts of discipline celebrities. They are concerned that the review will be too demanding. Other do review and the acceptance process is always lengthy and complicated by the higher standard that these submissions are held to so that integrity may be upheld.
So it is harder for the manuscripts of Nobel laureates and other discipline celebrities to gain acceptance because in effect they are held to a higher standard. Simply and colloquially put, it is a matter of “Caesar’s Wife”.
What is a more intriguing question is why the researchers missed this? Is it because they are psychologists, which is a fuzzy technical discipline, or because of journalistic censorship in the reporting? The world Wonders.