Inconsistencies of the Highly-Cited-Publications Indicator
Michael Schreiber
TL;DR
This paper examines the highly-cited-publications indicator used for evaluating scientists, revealing that it can produce counterintuitive and inconsistent rankings among researchers.
Contribution
It demonstrates the problematic behavior of the indicator and highlights its limitations in accurately ranking scientists based on highly cited publications.
Findings
The indicator can produce inconsistent rankings.
It behaves counterintuitively in certain cases.
The paper suggests the need for improved evaluation metrics.
Abstract
One way of evaluating individual scientists is the determination of the number of highly cited publications, where the threshold is given by a large reference set. It is shown that this indicator behaves in a counterintuitive way, leading to inconsistencies in the ranking of different scientists.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.