Does Cross-Field Influence Regional and Field-Specific Distributions of Highly Cited Researchers?

TL;DR

This study examines how the inclusion of cross-field highly cited researchers in 2018 affected regional and field-specific distributions, revealing significant shifts especially outside the US and China.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of HCR distributions before and after 2018, highlighting the impact of cross-field influence on scientometric measurements.

Findings

Cross-field inclusion significantly alters HCR distributions.

Regions outside US and China experienced notable growth post-2018.

Measurement biases were identified and addressed in the analysis.

Abstract

Clarivate Analytics announces highly cited researchers (HCRs) every November to recognise true pioneers in their respective fields over the last decade who are one in 1,000 according to citation analysis based on the Web of Science database. However, the scientometric rules underlying HCR selections have constantly evolved over the years; thus, a comparative study between HCRs' academic relevance before and after 2018, when the cross field started to be included in HCR statistics, is essential. This paper evaluated the consistency of measurements in 2017 and 2018 by analysing HCR distributions by different regions and Essential Science Indicators (ESI) fields, studied the effects of introducing the cross-field category to the original 21 ESI fields, and portrayed the accurate picture of HCR distributions by region and subject without the influence of measurement biases. The cross field is believed to exert great impact on regional and field-specific HCR distributions, especially for research fields with HCR counts larger than 150. It was other countries and regions except the US and China that grew with the greatest momentum after the inclusion of cross-field HCRs.