Evaluating scientists by citation and disruption of their representative works

A well-designed method for evaluating scientists is vital for the scientific community. It can be used to rank scientists in various practical tasks, such as hiring, funding application and promotion. However, a large number of evaluation methods are designed based on citation counts which can merely evaluate scientists’ scientific impact but can not evaluate their innovation ability which actually is a crucial characteristic for scientists. In addition, when evaluating scientists, it has become increasingly common to only focus on their representative works rather than all their papers. Accordingly, we here propose a hybrid method by combining scientific impact with innovation under representative works framework to evaluate scientists. Our results are validated on the American Physical Society journals dataset and the prestigious laureates datasets. The results suggest that the correlation between citation and disruption is weak, which enables us to incorporate them. In addition, the analysis shows that using representative works framework to evaluate scientists is advantageous and our hybrid method can effectively identify the Nobel Prize laureates and several other prestigious prizes laureates with higher precision and better mean ranking. The evaluation performance of the hybrid method is shown to be the best compared with the mainstream methods. This study provides policy makers an effective way to evaluate scientists from more comprehensive dimensions.