If you had to rank the most influential and skilled chemists of all-time and currently living, who would the be?
Hmm, why are Nobels in chemistry often given to NON-chem. people?Just quickly looking through the list Sharpless, Smalley, Noyori, and Finn are all Nobelists in addition to Grubbs. Note that the Chemistry Nobel quite often goes to non-chemists and it's often given late into scientists careers (some Nobels are awarded after the scientist has retired), so it's not surprising that recent Nobelists were not highly cited in the 2000s. It's possible that the most Science Watch list may predict Nobel Prizes in the 2020s, though the top 10 is quite nanotech heavy and I'm not sure research in that area has really panned out to give any practical applications worthy of a Nobel prize yet. The list basically shows how imperfect citations are as a metric for measuring scientific influence.
Biology, especially molecular biology, is essentially an application of chemistry, and many molecular biologists, biochemists, and structural biologists have won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in recent years. The Science Watch list (I assume, since they're not really transparent about their methods) looks only at citations in chemistry journals, whereas the more biology-focused Nobelists typically publish in biology journals.Hmm, why are Nobels in chemistry often given to NON-chem. people?
It is most common in chemistry, though it happens in other fields. For examples, two of the winners of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine were chemists who helped discover/develop new drugs to combat malaria and roundworms.Is this common for other disciplines?
Yes, citations are probably a poor metric for deciding who are the "best" or most influential scientists.Also, what about reputation metrics? Surely, there are people who are considered the "best" without necessarily being the most cited, right?