Abstract
Highly cited researchers are a category of researchers defined by scientometric rules relating to counts of citations to their scholarly articles. The designation often refers to researchers identified according to scientometric rules specified by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) and its commercial affiliates; we denote these categories as HCR. The 2001 ISI rules (HRC.1) used membership thresholds derived from the total citation counts to an author’s corpus in a specified research field and time window. The modified 2013 rules also include counts of individual highly cited publications (HCR.2), while the foreshadowed 2018 rules introduce the concept of cross-field influence (HCR.3). The HCR category is a popular, albeit flawed, indicator of outstanding individual researchers. HCR membership has been used as the basis for many studies of research excellence, including the use of an institution’s HCR count as an indicator in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). The paper traces the development of the HCR category and its use by ARWU, providing insights into the social construction of research indicators and their potential to change research practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adair, W. C. (1955). Citation indexes for scientific literature? American Documentation, 6(1), 31–32.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1537-2.
Analytics, C. (2018). New this year: Cross-field category. Clarivate Analytics. https://feedback.hcr.clarivate.com/new-this-year/. Accessed November 23, 2018.
Anon. (2004). Citation Laureate Awarded to psychiatrist. Australiasian Psychiatry, 12(2), 204.
Anon. (2018). Back to the future: Institute for Scientific Information re-established within Clarivate Analytics. https://clarivate.com/blog/news/back-future-institute-scientific-information-re-established-within-clarivate-analytics/. Accessed March 28, 2018.
ARWU. (2012). Methodology for the computation of the HiCi indicator. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2012.html. Accessed October 19, 2015.
Basu, A. (2006). Using ISI’s’ Highly Cited Researchers’ to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence. Scientometrics, 68(3), 361–375.
Batty, M. (2003). The geography of scientific citation. Environment and Planning A, 35(5), 761–765.
Bhattacharjee, Y. (2011). Saudi universities offer cash in exchange for academic prestige. Science, 34(6061), 1344–1345.
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.
Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2018). Count highly-cited papers instead of papers with h citations: Use normalized citation counts and compare “like with like”! Scientometrics, 115(2), 1119–1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2682-1.
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 93–102.
Bornmann, L., Wagner, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). BRICS countries and scientific excellence: A bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1507–1513.
Burns, J., Brenner, A., Kiser, K., Krot, M., Llewellyn, C., & Snyder, R. (2009). JSTOR-data for research. In International conference on theory and practice of digital libraries (pp. 416–419). Springer.
Clarivate Analytics. (2018a). Highly cited researchers: Archived lists. https://clarivate.com/hcr/researchers-list/archived-lists/. Accessed June 12, 2018.
Clarivate Analytics. (2018b). Highly cited researchers: Metholdology. https://clarivate.com/hcr/methodology/. Accessed June 12, 2018.
Clarivate Analytics. (2018c). New this year: Cross-field category. https://feedback.hcr.clarivate.com/new-this-year/. Accessed 23 Nov 2018.
Cronin, B. (2005). A hundred million acts of whimsy? Current Science - Bangalore, 89(9), 1505.
De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.
Docampo, D. (2013). Reproducibility of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities results. Scientometrics, 94(2), 567–587.
Docampo, D., & Cram, L. (2014). On the internal dynamics of the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1347–1366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1143-0.
Fernández-Cano, A., Curiel-Marin, E., Torralbo-Rodríguez, M., & Vallejo-Ruiz, M. (2018). Questioning the Shanghai Ranking methodology as a tool for the evaluation of universities: An integrative review. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2069–2083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2814-7.
Florian, R. V. (2007). Irreproducibility of the results of the Shangai academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics, 72(1), 25–32.
Frenken, K., Hardeman, S., & Hoekman, J. (2009). Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 222–232.
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108–111.
Garfield, E. (1957). Breaking the subject index barrier-a citation index for chemical patents. Journal of the Patent Office Society, 39, 583.
Garfield, E. (1967). Current contents ninth anniversary. Essays of an Information Scientist, 1(12), 12–15.
Garfield, E. (1970). Citation indexing for studying science. Nature, 227, 669–671.
Garfield, E. (1978). The 100 most-cited SSCI authors, 1969–1977. Essays of an Information Scientist, 3, 633–639.
Garfield, E. (1998). On the origins of current contents and ISI. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/origins_cc_isi.html. Accessed January 13, 2016.
Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1992). Of Nobel class: A citation perspective on high impact research authors. Theoretical Medicine, 13, 117–135.
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a.
King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311–316.
Lane, P. (1992). Thomson corporation acquires majority interest in ISI. Information Today, 9(5), 1–2.
Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2005). Academic ranking of world universities: Methodologies and problems. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 127–136.
MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36, 435–444.
Más-Bleda, A., & Aguillo, I. F. (2013). Can a personal website be useful as an information source to assess individual scientists? The case of European highly cited researchers. Scientometrics, 96(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0952-5.
McVeigh, M. E. (2004). How does ISI identify highly cited researchers. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20040213102413/http://highlycited.com/isi_copy/comm_news08.htm. Accessed 1 Oct 2013.
Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy, 14(3), 131–149.
Moed, H. F., De Bruin, R. E., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3), 381–422.
Morse, R., & Krivian, A. (2017). How U.S. News calculated the best global universities rankings. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/methodology. Accessed June 17, 2018 .
Paarlberg, R. L. (2004). Knowledge as power: Science, military dominance, and U.S. security. International Security, 29(1), 122–151.
Parker, J., Allesina, S., & Lortie, C. (2013). Characterizing a scientific elite (B): Publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics, 94(2), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0859-6.
Parker, J., 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.
Pendlebury, D. A. (2014). Methodology: Thomson reuters citation laureates. http://sciencewatch.com/sites/sw/files/images/basic/methodology_citation_laureate_2014.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2015.
Petersen, A. M., Fortunato, S., Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., Penner, O., Rungi, A., et al. (2014). Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(43), 15316–15321.
Seglan, P. O. (1997). Education and debate. British Medical Journal, 314, 498–502.
Thomson-ISI. (2000). Japan’s citation laureates, 1981–98. Retreived from http://web.archive.org/web/20081014043920/http://archive.sciencewatch.com/nov-dec2000/sw_nov-dec2000_page1.htm. Accessed 2 March 2015.
Thomson-ISI. (2001). ISI Launches ISIHighlyCited.com. http://www.infotoday.com/IT/apr01/news7.htm. Accessed June 25, 2015 .
Thomson-ISI (2008). How do we identify highly cited researchers? http://archive.li/XJtCF. Accessed November 19, 2018.
Thomson Reuters. (2014). Methodology for identifying highly-cited researchers. http://www.highlycited.com/methodology/. Accessed October 19, 2015.
Useem, M. (1976). State production of social knowledge: Patterns in government financing of academic social research. American Sociological Review, 41(4), 613–629.
USPTO. (2001). highlycited.com. United States Patent and Trademark Office. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:do7p7v.2.1. Accessed November 19, 2018.
Van den Brink, M., Fruytier, B., & Thunnissen, M. (2013). Talent management in academia: Performance systems and HRM policies. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(2), 180–195.
Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequencesfor international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335–346.
van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, T. N., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2003). The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57(2), 257–280.
van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37–47.
Yap, S. (2016). Onex, Baring PE Asia complete $3.55b acquisition of Thomson Reuters unit. https://www.dealstreetasia.com/stories/54724-54724/. Accessed March 28, 2018.
Acknowledgements
The work of D. Docampo was supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Galician Regional Government under agreement for funding the Atlantic Research Center for Information and Communication Technologies (AtlantTIC), as well as by the Government of Spain through the Salvador de Madariaga Program.
Data
Additional information relating to the work reported here is deposited for open access in Technical Reports and other data sets at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Domingo_Docampo/publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Docampo, D., Cram, L. Highly cited researchers: a moving target. Scientometrics 118, 1011–1025 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2993-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2993-2