Counting publications and citations: Is more always better?

TL;DR

This paper questions whether increasing the number of highly cited publications always correlates with greater scientific impact, proposing a model that accounts for randomness and suggesting improved counting methods.

Contribution

It introduces a simple probabilistic model showing that more highly cited publications do not necessarily indicate higher impact and proposes a better counting approach.

Findings

More highly cited publications do not always mean greater impact

Influential researchers may have fewer highly cited papers than less influential ones

An improved method for counting highly cited publications is suggested

Abstract

Is more always better? We address this question in the context of bibliometric indices that aim to assess the scientific impact of individual researchers by counting their number of highly cited publications. We propose a simple model in which the number of citations of a publication depends not only on the scientific impact of the publication but also on other 'random' factors. Our model indicates that more need not always be better. It turns out that the most influential researchers may have a systematically lower performance, in terms of highly cited publications, than some of their less influential colleagues. The model also suggests an improved way of counting highly cited publications.