Lone Geniuses or One among Many? An Explorative Study of Contemporary Highly Cited Researchers

Abstract

PurposeThe ranking lists of highly cited researchers receive much public attention. In common interpretations, highly cited researchers are perceived to have made extraordinary contributions to science. Thus, the metrics of highly cited researchers are often linked to notions of breakthroughs, scientific excellence, and lone geniuses.Design/methodology/approachIn this study, we analyze a sample of individuals who appear on Clarivate Analytics’ Highly Cited Researchers list. The main purpose is to juxtapose the characteristics of their research performance against the claim that the list captures a small fraction of the researcher population that contributes disproportionately to extending the frontier and gaining—on behalf of society—knowledge and innovations that make the world healthier, richer, sustainable, and more secure.FindingsThe study reveals that the highly cited articles of the selected individuals generally have a very large number of authors. Thus, these papers seldom represent individual contributions but rather are the result of large collective research efforts conducted in research consortia. This challenges the common perception of highly cited researchers as individual geniuses who can be singled out for their extraordinary contributions. Moreover, the study indicates that a few of the individuals have not even contributed to highly cited original research but rather to reviews or clinical guidelines. Finally, the large number of authors of the papers implies that the ranking list is very sensitive to the specific method used for allocating papers and citations to individuals. In the “whole count” methodology applied by Clarivate Analytics, each author gets full credit of the papers regardless of the number of additional co-authors. The study shows that the ranking list would look very different using an alternative fractionalised methodology.Research limitationsThe study is based on a limited part of the total population of highly cited researchers.Practical implicationsIt is concluded that “excellence” understood as highly cited encompasses very different types of research and researchers of which many do not fit with dominant preconceptions.Originality/valueThe study develops further knowledge on highly cited researchers, addressing questions such as who becomes highly cited and the type of research that benefits by defining excellence in terms of citation scores and specific counting methods.

What Is Wrong With the Current Evaluative Bibliometrics?

“…These authors are often linked to notions of scientific excellence or breakthrough research. In a recent study, Aksnes and Aagaard (2021) analyzed publication, citation, and collaboration statistics of these people. The results show that highly cited researchers are usually not those who are credited for individual extraordinary contribution.…”

Starstruck by journal prestige and citation counts? On students’ bias and perceptions of trustworthiness according to clues in publication references

“…Indeed, the results of several studies support this view (Bartneck & Hu, 2010 ; Bu et al, 2018a , 2018b ; Larivière et al, 2015 ; Melin & Persson, 1996 ; Sandnes, 2021a ; Wuchty et al, 2007 ; Xu et al, 2015 ). Contrastively Aksnes and Aagaard ( 2021 ) pointed out that “there is a common perception of highly cited researchers as individual geniuses who can be singled out for their extraordinary contributions”. This dichotomy gave rise to the following hypothesis.…”