Abstract This study investigates field-specific and regional disparities in the distribution of Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers (HCRs) and proposes improvements to research evaluation methodologies. A two-way analysis spanning 21 research fields and the top 10 regions in the 2023 HCR list identifies both systematic measurement errors and realistic disparities that undermine comparability across fields. These findings were rigorously compared against baseline scenarios from 2018-2021—the period preceding Clarivate’s implementation of stricter exclusion criteria for HCR evaluations. Analysis reveals subcategory heterogeneity compromises HCR metrics in the Engineering field, demonstrating why citation data requires heterogeneity adjustments within ESI fields. While regional differences in HCR numbers reflect genuine variations in research investment and capacity, they are also distorted by methodological inconsistencies. These findings emphasize the urgency of adopting more rigorous interpretations of HCR outcomes to accurately reflect field-specific and regional contributions. Finally, this study advocates for methodological reforms, including field-normalized adjustments to citation and publication thresholds and fractional counting for regional contributions. Implementing these changes earlier in the candidate selection process could appropriately increase HCR representation in specific fields and regions. In contrast, Clarivate’s current non-transparent qualitative exclusion practices unjustly constrain HCR numbers, disregarding variations across fields and regions.
Xinyi Chen (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: