Okay the question is really soft. But I am wondering about the relationship between one's productivity (namely quality of papers, number of papers published) and prizes received.


So here is my question:



> 
> What is your opinion on the following statement: Mathematician tends to have their productivity declined after receiving major prizes. The amount of decline depends on the prestige of the prize awarded.
> 
> 
> 


While I know there are fields medalists who published nearly nothing after receiving the medal, there are also plenty who continue to work vigorously. But in general, will one become less productive after receiving prize? Does the prize usually achieve its function as a stimulus?



How does your productivity change after receiving prizes?
[Prizes and Productivity: How Winning the Fields Medal Affects Scientific Output](http://www3.nd.edu/~tjohns20/RePEc/deendus/wpaper/022_Fields.pdf) (2013)



> 
> Knowledge generation is key to economic growth, and scientific prizes
>  are designed to encourage it. But how does winning a prestigious prize
>  affect future output? We compare the productivity of Fields medalists
>  (winners of the top mathematics prize) to that of similarly brilliant
>  contenders. The two groups have similar publication rates until the
>  award year, after which the winners’ productivity declines. The
>  medalists begin to “play the field,” studying unfamiliar topics at the
>  expense of writing papers. It appears that tournaments can have large
>  post-prize effects on the effort allocation of knowledge producers.
> 
> 
> 


![](https://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/field_medal.jpg)


