IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v118y2019i3d10.1007_s11192-018-2993-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Highly cited researchers: a moving target

Author

Listed:
  • Domingo Docampo

    (Universidade de Vigo)

  • Lawrence Cram

    (Australian National University
    Charles Darwin University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:118:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2993-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2993-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2993-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-018-2993-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 131-149, June.
    2. Aparna Basu, 2006. "Using ISI's 'Highly Cited Researchers' to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 361-375, September.
    3. Michael Batty, 2003. "The Geography of Scientific Citation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 35(5), pages 761-765, May.
    4. Nabil Amara & Réjean Landry & Norrin Halilem, 2015. "What can university administrators do to increase the publication and citation scores of their faculty members?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 489-530, May.
    5. Răzvan V. Florian, 2007. "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(1), pages 25-32, July.
    6. Domingo Docampo, 2013. "Reproducibility of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 567-587, February.
    7. Thed N. Van Leeuwen & Martijn S. Visser & Henk F. Moed & Ton J. Nederhof & Anthony F. J. Van Raan, 2003. "The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(2), pages 257-280, June.
    8. W. C. Adair, 1955. "Citation indexes for scientific literature?," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 31-32, January.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Caroline Wagner & Loet Leydesdorff, 2015. "BRICS countries and scientific excellence: A bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(7), pages 1507-1513, July.
    10. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2014. "On the internal dynamics of the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1347-1366, February.
    11. Lutz Bornmann & Johann Bauer & Elisabeth Maria Schlagberger, 2017. "Characteristics of highly cited researchers 2015 in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 543-545, April.
    12. Lutz Bornmann & Loet Leydesdorff, 2018. "Count highly-cited papers instead of papers with h citations: use normalized citation counts and compare “like with like”!," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1119-1123, May.
    13. Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2005. "Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 133-143, January.
    14. David A. King, 2004. "The scientific impact of nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 430(6997), pages 311-316, July.
    15. Thed N. Van Leeuwen & Henk F. Moed & Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Anthony F. J. Van Raan, 2001. "Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequencesfor international comparisons of national research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 335-346, April.
    16. Frenken, Koen & Hardeman, Sjoerd & Hoekman, Jarno, 2009. "Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 222-232.
    17. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    18. Antonio Fernández-Cano & Elvira Curiel-Marin & Manuel Torralbo-Rodríguez & Mónica Vallejo-Ruiz, 2018. "Questioning the Shanghai Ranking methodology as a tool for the evaluation of universities: an integrative review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2069-2083, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xinyi Chen, 2023. "Does cross-field influence regional and field-specific distributions of highly cited researchers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 825-840, January.
    2. Adeline Dugerdil & Lara Sponagel & Awa Babington-Ashaye & Antoine Flahault, 2022. "International University Ranking Systems and Their Relevance for the Medical and Health Sciences – A Scoping Review," International Journal of Higher Education, Sciedu Press, vol. 11(5), pages 102-102, October.
    3. Lauranne Chaignon & Domingo Docampo & Daniel Egret, 2023. "In search of a scientific elite: highly cited researchers (HCR) in France," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5801-5827, October.
    4. Ajitha Kumari Vijayappan Nair Biju & Ann Susan Thomas & J Thasneem, 2024. "Examining the research taxonomy of artificial intelligence, deep learning & machine learning in the financial sphere—a bibliometric analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 849-878, February.
    5. Ahmad Firdaus & Mohd Faizal Ab Razak & Ali Feizollah & Ibrahim Abaker Targio Hashem & Mohamad Hazim & Nor Badrul Anuar, 2019. "The rise of “blockchain”: bibliometric analysis of blockchain study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1289-1331, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pedro Albarrán & Juan A. Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2010. "A comparison of the scientific performance of the U.S. and the European union at the turn of the 21st century," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 329-344, October.
    2. Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2012. "The evaluation of citation distributions," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 291-310, March.
    3. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Simar, Léopold, 2015. "Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 918-930.
    4. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    5. Osmo Kivinen & Juha Hedman & Kalle Artukka, 2017. "Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 679-695, July.
    6. D. Docampo & D. Egret & L. Cram, 2015. "The effect of university mergers on the Shanghai ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 175-191, July.
    7. Albarrán, Pedro & Crespo, Juan A. & Ortuño, Ignacio, 2009. "A comparison of the scientific performance of the U. S. and the European Union at the turn of the XXI century," UC3M Working papers. Economics we095534, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    8. Lauranne Chaignon & Domingo Docampo & Daniel Egret, 2023. "In search of a scientific elite: highly cited researchers (HCR) in France," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5801-5827, October.
    9. Antonio Fernández-Cano & Elvira Curiel-Marin & Manuel Torralbo-Rodríguez & Mónica Vallejo-Ruiz, 2018. "Questioning the Shanghai Ranking methodology as a tool for the evaluation of universities: an integrative review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2069-2083, September.
    10. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    11. Albarrán, Pedro & Ortuño, Ignacio & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier, 2011. "High- and low-impact citation measures: Empirical applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 122-145.
    12. Rafols, Ismael & Stirling, Andy, 2020. "Designing indicators for opening up evaluation. Insights from research assessment," SocArXiv h2fxp, Center for Open Science.
    13. Brito, Ricardo & Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso, 2018. "Research assessment by percentile-based double rank analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 315-329.
    14. Alberto Martín-Martín & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2018. "Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2175-2188, September.
    15. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Cassidy R Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2019. "Follow the leader: On the relationship between leadership and scholarly impact in international collaborations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Confraria, Hugo & Mira Godinho, Manuel & Wang, Lili, 2017. "Determinants of citation impact: A comparative analysis of the Global South versus the Global North," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 265-279.
    17. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Fulvio Viel, 2011. "The field-standardized average impact of national research systems compared to world average: the case of Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 599-615, August.
    18. Nabil Amara & Réjean Landry & Norrin Halilem, 2015. "What can university administrators do to increase the publication and citation scores of their faculty members?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 489-530, May.
    19. Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso & Brito, Ricardo, 2018. "Technological research in the EU is less efficient than the world average. EU research policy risks Europeans’ future," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 718-731.
    20. repec:cte:werepe:11672 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Lutz Bornmann & Julian N. Marewski, 2019. "Heuristics as conceptual lens for understanding and studying the usage of bibliometrics in research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 419-459, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:118:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2993-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.