Abstract
Clarivate Analytics announces highly cited researchers (HCRs) every November to recognise true pioneers in their respective fields over the last decade who are one in 1000 according to citation analysis based on the Web of Science™ database. However, the scientometric rules underlying HCR selections have constantly evolved over the years; thus, a comparative study between HCRs’ academic relevance before and after 2018, when the cross field started to be included in HCR statistics, is essential. This paper evaluated the consistency of measurements in 2017 and 2018 by analysing HCR distributions by different regions and Essential Science Indicators (ESI) fields, studied the effects of introducing the cross-field category to the original 21 ESI fields, and portrayed the accurate picture of HCR distributions by region and subject without the influence of measurement biases. The cross field is believed to exert great impact on regional and field-specific HCR distributions, especially for research fields with HCR counts larger than 150. It was other countries and regions except the US and China that grew with the greatest momentum after the inclusion of cross-field HCRs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amara, N., Landry, R., & Halilem, N. (2015). What can university administrators do to increase the publication and citation scores of their faculty members? Scientometrics, 103(2), 489–530.
Basu, A. (2006). Using ISI’s “highly cited researchers” to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence. Scientometrics, 68(3), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0117-x
Benito, M., Gil, P., & Romera, R. (2020). Evaluating the influence of country characteristics on the Higher Education System Rankings’ progress. Journal of Informetrics, 14(3), 101051.
Bland, J. M. (2006). How do I estimate limits of agreement when the mean or SD of differences is not constant? Retrieved December 15, 2021, from http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mb55/meas/glucose.htm
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999). Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8(2), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800204
Bornmann, L. (2013). A better alternative to the h index. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 100–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.09.004
Bornmann, L., & Bauer, J. (2015). Which of the world’s institutions employ the most highly cited researchers? An analysis of the data from highlycited.com. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2146–2148. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23396
Bornmann, L., Bauer, J., & Schlagberger, E. M. (2017). Characteristics of highly cited researchers 2015 in Germany. Scientometrics, 111(1), 543–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2248-7
Cai, L. N., & Ying, C. (2005). The academic ranking of world universities. Higher Education in Europe, 3(2), 127–136.
Chen, S., Qiu, J., Arsenault, C., & Larivière, V. (2021). Exploring the interdisciplinarity patterns of highly cited papers. Journal of Informetrics, 15(1), 101124.
Clarivate. (2021). Highly cited researchers: Methodology. Retrieved from https://recognition.webofscience.com/awards/highly-cited/2021/methodology/
Docampo, D., & Cram, L. (2019). Highly cited researchers: A moving target. Scientometrics, 118(3), 1011–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2993-2
Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing—its theory and application in science, technology and humanities. Wiley.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Simon & Schuster.
Leskošek, B. L., & Stare, J. (2015). Comparison of bibliometric measures for assessing relative importance of researchers. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1743–1762.
Ludbrook, J. (1997). Comparing methods of measurement. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 24, 193–203.
Ludbrook, J. (2002). Statistical techniques for comparing measurers and methods of measurement: A critical review. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 29(7), 527–536. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1681.2002.03686.x
Ludbrook, J. (2010). Confidence in Altman–Bland plots: A critical review of the method of differences. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 37(2), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1681.2009.05288.x
Melero, R. (2015). Altmetrics: A complement to conventional metrics. Biochemia Medica, 25(2), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.016
Parker, J. N., Lortie, C., & Allesina, S. (2010). Characterizing a scientific elite: The social characteristics of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics, 85(1), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0234-4
Woodman, R. J. (2010). Bland-Altman beyond the basics: Creating confidence with badly behaved data. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 37(2), 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1681.2009.05320.x
Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406–415.
Zhang, Y. C. (2020). Identifying prize-winning scientists by a competition-aware ranking. Journal of Informetrics, 14(3), 101038.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, X. Does cross-field influence regional and field-specific distributions of highly cited researchers?. Scientometrics 128, 825–840 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04584-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04584-3