Roposed to resolve iterative dyadic conflicts of the PD type that calls for ignoring the entire history of the interaction apart from the immediately preceding outcome demands close scrutiny. Our findings challenge the generality of Axelrod’s results and, in particular, their non-critical interpretation by showing that they are restricted to a particular combination of tournament format, criterion for success, and the PD payoff values. qhw.v5i4.5120 We show that other strategies turn out to be most successful when the format, criterion, and PD payoff values differ from those used in the original tournaments. This, in turn, suggests that Axelrod’s original question about how to choose effectively in the iterated PD game is yet to be answered.PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0134128 July 30,9 /Is Tit-for-Tat the Answer?Supporting InformationS1 Alternative Tournament Formats. (PDF) S1 Tournament Results. (XLSX)AcknowledgmentsPreparation of this manuscript was supported by Grant RM43G0176 awarded by the Leicester Judgment and Decision Making Endowment Fund to A. M. Colman. The first author of this article (Amnon Rapoport) was among the competitors in the original tournament.Author ContributionsConceived and designed the experiments: AR. Performed the experiments: AR DS. KF-89617 site Analyzed the data: AR DS AC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: AR DS AC. Wrote the paper: AR DS AC. Proposed the original idea and drafted the manuscript: AR. Performed the computer simulations: DS. Contributed critical revisions: AC.
The unique status, posture, and prestige of the Nobel Prize have made it an enduring subject in the sociology of science [1?]. According to Alfred Nobel’s will, pnas.1408988111 the Prize should be awarded to those who “shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind.” In Physiology or Medicine the Prize can be shared by up to three Fruquintinib web scientists each year who have made the most importantPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0134164 July 31,1 /A Network Analysis of Nobel Prize WinnersNobel Committee. PM worked directly with KN as a post-doctoral researcher funded by the Swedish government.discovery in their domain. This study explores and identifies the collaborative behavior of scientists embedded within research networks in Physiology or Medicine. Our focus is not on predicting Prize winners or explaining the impact of the Prize on the winner. Rather, we explore whether Prize winners have distinctive collaboration behavior and whether they are embedded more within distinctive research networks than non-Prize winning contemporaries. In seeking to understand the driving forces behind exceptional scientific accomplishment, the literature on Nobel Laureates has explored their productivity, impact, and collaboration [8], as well as the effects of age on productivity and creativity [5, 10]. Still other studies have broadly analyzed the impact of other prizes such as Howard Hughes award [11], and Fields Medals [12]. However, Harriet Zuckerman [8] first raised questions about the differences in productivity patterns of Nobel Prize awarded scientists, noting specific strategies and behaviors that differentiate Laureates from non-Laureates. Our sample of Nobel Laureates begins where Zuckerman’s ended at the end of the 1960s. This research project raises similar questions but also develops data using different design elements and methods of analysis on a sample of Prize winners in Physiology or Medicine and a matched comparison group of highly productive scientists. A.Roposed to resolve iterative dyadic conflicts of the PD type that calls for ignoring the entire history of the interaction apart from the immediately preceding outcome demands close scrutiny. Our findings challenge the generality of Axelrod’s results and, in particular, their non-critical interpretation by showing that they are restricted to a particular combination of tournament format, criterion for success, and the PD payoff values. qhw.v5i4.5120 We show that other strategies turn out to be most successful when the format, criterion, and PD payoff values differ from those used in the original tournaments. This, in turn, suggests that Axelrod’s original question about how to choose effectively in the iterated PD game is yet to be answered.PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0134128 July 30,9 /Is Tit-for-Tat the Answer?Supporting InformationS1 Alternative Tournament Formats. (PDF) S1 Tournament Results. (XLSX)AcknowledgmentsPreparation of this manuscript was supported by Grant RM43G0176 awarded by the Leicester Judgment and Decision Making Endowment Fund to A. M. Colman. The first author of this article (Amnon Rapoport) was among the competitors in the original tournament.Author ContributionsConceived and designed the experiments: AR. Performed the experiments: AR DS. Analyzed the data: AR DS AC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: AR DS AC. Wrote the paper: AR DS AC. Proposed the original idea and drafted the manuscript: AR. Performed the computer simulations: DS. Contributed critical revisions: AC.
The unique status, posture, and prestige of the Nobel Prize have made it an enduring subject in the sociology of science [1?]. According to Alfred Nobel’s will, pnas.1408988111 the Prize should be awarded to those who “shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind.” In Physiology or Medicine the Prize can be shared by up to three scientists each year who have made the most importantPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0134164 July 31,1 /A Network Analysis of Nobel Prize WinnersNobel Committee. PM worked directly with KN as a post-doctoral researcher funded by the Swedish government.discovery in their domain. This study explores and identifies the collaborative behavior of scientists embedded within research networks in Physiology or Medicine. Our focus is not on predicting Prize winners or explaining the impact of the Prize on the winner. Rather, we explore whether Prize winners have distinctive collaboration behavior and whether they are embedded more within distinctive research networks than non-Prize winning contemporaries. In seeking to understand the driving forces behind exceptional scientific accomplishment, the literature on Nobel Laureates has explored their productivity, impact, and collaboration [8], as well as the effects of age on productivity and creativity [5, 10]. Still other studies have broadly analyzed the impact of other prizes such as Howard Hughes award [11], and Fields Medals [12]. However, Harriet Zuckerman [8] first raised questions about the differences in productivity patterns of Nobel Prize awarded scientists, noting specific strategies and behaviors that differentiate Laureates from non-Laureates. Our sample of Nobel Laureates begins where Zuckerman’s ended at the end of the 1960s. This research project raises similar questions but also develops data using different design elements and methods of analysis on a sample of Prize winners in Physiology or Medicine and a matched comparison group of highly productive scientists. A.