Research on global academic elites, often focusing on Nobel laureates, has largely overlooked scientific awards and elites from developing countries. This study addresses this gap by focusing on the Alejandro Ángel Escobar Prize (AAEP), Colombia's most prestigious science award. The study investigates whether receiving a special mention (effectively, being a runner-up) in the AAEP provides a similar research impact boost as winning the award itself. The lack of similar studies focusing on developing countries necessitates this research, as the output, path-dependent trajectories, research focus, and motivation of scientists in these regions can differ significantly from those in developed nations. Colombia, while regionally successful in scientific output, has a relatively small presence among global scientific elites. The AAEP serves as a suitable analog to international awards like the Nobel Prize, providing a unique opportunity to study scientific achievement in a developing nation. The study aims to answer two key research questions: 1) What are the overall bibliometric features of researchers who received special mention in the AAEP (referred to as the Colombian scientific semi-elite, or sCSE)? and 2) Are there significant differences in scientific impact between the sCSE and the Colombian scientific elite (CSE, the AAEP awardees)? The answers will contribute to a more nuanced understanding of research impact and its assessment, particularly in developing countries, providing insights for research evaluation organizations and individuals.

Existing research on scientific elites heavily relies on studies of Nobel laureates and winners of other international awards like the Fields Medal and the Turing Award. Early work by Zuckerman used qualitative methods to chart the career trajectories of Nobel laureates, while Garfield's research revealed that Nobel laureates were significantly more cited than average researchers. Subsequent studies have examined various aspects of scientific elites, including the time lag between discovery and recognition, document characteristics, productivity, collaboration, citation impact, and gender bias. However, these studies often neglect scientific awards in developing countries and the 'almost winners,' those who received special mention or nominations but did not win. The current study aims to bridge this research gap by focusing on the Colombian context and including both awardees and special mention recipients.

The study used data on AAEP awardees and special mention recipients from 1990 to 2020, sourced from the AAEP website and a commemorative book. The Scopus database was chosen due to its broader social science coverage compared to Web of Science. The initial sample included 111 special mention recipients (sCSE). After excluding researchers with only one indexed publication and those with more than 10 co-authors in a publication, the final Scopus-based sample consisted of 35 sCSE researchers. This selection was made to avoid bias towards large collaborative projects (particularly in the field of Big Science). Articles with 10+ authors were excluded due to difficulties in assessing individual contributions. A similar sample of 35 CSE researchers (AAEP awardees) was randomly selected from a larger dataset previously assembled, ensuring comparable sample sizes. Researchers were reclassified according to the most frequent subject area of their publications based on Scopus's All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) to account for interdisciplinary research. For RQ1, a descriptive-longitudinal analysis of total output and citation per category was conducted, focusing on the top three most prolific researchers in each category to explore citation trends before and after the award or special mention. For RQ2, a composite citation indicator (C) developed by Ioannidis et al. (2016) was employed. The C indicator considers multiple metrics to assess research impact, including total citations, h-index, Schreiber hm-index (adjusting for co-authorship), and citations for articles where the researcher was the sole author, first author, or last author. The C indicator offers a more comprehensive evaluation of individual researcher impact compared to relying solely on traditional metrics.

The analysis revealed that a substantial portion of sCSE researchers (around 75%) hold degrees from prestigious Colombian or US/European institutions, highlighting the influence of institutional pedigree on recognition. Figures 4 and 5 show citation per article trends for the top three most prolific researchers in each category for both sCSE and CSE. The analysis showed that for several researchers, the highest citation peak occurred *before* the award or special mention was received. There was no consistent pattern of increased citation after the award, indicating the absence of a significant 'halo effect'. This differed from studies of Nobel laureates which often show a peak *at* the time of the award. Table 2 presents the composite citation indicator (C) for both sCSE and CSE researchers. The results showed a mixed distribution of sCSE and CSE across all quartiles of the C indicator, indicating no clear distinction in overall impact between these two groups. In many cases, sCSE researchers were found to have higher impact scores than some CSE researchers in their respective fields. This was particularly evident in the Arts and Humanities and Agricultural and Biological Sciences, where sCSE researchers occupied top ranks. The lack of a clear separation between the sCSE and CSE suggests that the AAEP's selection process recognizes high-quality research irrespective of whether it ultimately wins the top prize or receives a special mention.

The findings challenge the notion of a clear-cut distinction between scientific elites and those who narrowly miss the top prize. The relatively low publication profile of both sCSE and CSE researchers in internationally recognized databases likely reflects the AAEP's inclusive nature, which considers various research outputs beyond internationally indexed articles. This inclusiveness acknowledges the diverse research practices and traditions within different disciplines and contexts. While STEM fields predominantly rely on international English-language publications, Social Sciences and Humanities show a higher frequency of publications in local, Spanish-language journals, reflecting the differences in publishing and citation practices in these fields. The significant gender disparity in the sCSE is consistent with broader trends in science and reflects the systemic challenges faced by female researchers. The study also confirmed the influence of institutional prestige on the dissemination of scientific ideas and the likelihood of receiving AAEP recognition. The absence of a significant 'halo effect' following the award or special mention contrasts with observations regarding Nobel laureates and suggests that the AAEP's impact is more aligned with that seen in other award schemes like the Turing award, where success is often associated with a longer and already established research career.

This study provides a valuable contribution to the understanding of scientific (semi-)elites in developing countries. The AAEP's inclusive approach to selecting researchers and the lack of a discernable difference in research impact between awardees and special mention recipients challenge conventional notions of scientific elite status. Future research could expand on this study by examining other awards in developing countries, using multiple bibliographic databases, incorporating science mapping techniques, and including altmetrics to analyze the broader impact of these awards. The diverse research practices in different disciplines, particularly the contrast between STEM and Social Sciences/Humanities, should be factored into future studies on research evaluation and impact.

The study's limitations include its focus on a single developing country and the use of a single bibliographic database. Future research should expand geographically and utilize multiple databases such as Web of Science, Dimensions, and Google Scholar to improve data comprehensiveness. Furthermore, the exploratory nature of the citation per article analysis could be improved by using more sophisticated methods such as regression discontinuity or structural variation analysis to rigorously examine the impact of the awards. Finally, the study did not fully address the contribution of researchers within large collaborative projects which could have skewed the results.