FAQs

How can we help you?

Methodology

I have been named a Cross-Field Highly Cited Researcher, but I am a Geologist and ask that I be placed in the category Geosciences.

If you had a sufficient number of highly cited papers and total citations to publications assigned to the ESI field Geosciences, you would have been selected and named in that field and not named a Highly Cited Researcher in the Cross-Field category. Instead, a tally of all your highly cited papers, not only in Geosciences but also in Engineering and in Environment/Ecology, revealed a publication and citation record equivalent to those selected in any one or more ESI fields. In other words, you qualified for selection through the combination of highly cited papers in several fields, demonstrating superior multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary impact. To list you in Geosciences would misrepresent the measure by which those selected for that field were chosen and the manner in which you qualified for selection in a different class.

How do you identify researchers in your Highly Cited Researchers list?

The Highly Cited Researchers list from Clarivate Analytics represents scientists and social scientists who have demonstrated significant influence through publication of multiple highly cited papers during the last decade.

Researchers are selected for their exceptional performance in one or more of 21 broad fields (those used in Clarivate Analytics Essential Science Indicators, or ESI) or across several fields.

For more information on how we identify researchers, please refer to our Methodology section.

What is new in this year’s list? What is the Cross-Field category?

In 2018 we have introduced a new Cross-Field category that aims to identify researchers who have contributed to highly cited papers across several different fields. This is the first year that we identify researchers with cross-field impact.

Please refer to the New this year: Cross-Field Category section for more information about this new category.

One of our faculty members was on a prior Highly Cited Researchers list (e.g. 2001, 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017) but doesn’t appear in the new list. Shouldn't she be on the new list?

Not necessarily, although there are many researchers who, in fact, appear on the both old and new lists. The period of analysis used for the new list is limited to 2006-2016. Citations were tabulated through the end of 2016. Clarivate Analytics will retain and provide the old lists side-by-side with the new list. In any case, once a researcher is designated as Highly Cited by Clarivate Analytics, that researcher is always deemed Highly Cited in our view.

Why does a junior member of our faculty appear on the Highly Cited Researchers 2018 list, but a more senior member does not?

The specific methodology used in generating the new list can turn up researchers – even so-called junior researchers – who have contributed multiple highly cited papers during 2006-2016, whereas more senior and even more cited scientists may not have been identified because they did not publish as many Highly Cited Papers in a field (as we defined it) or across fields during this period.

We believe the result aligns with our goal: the identification of researchers with substantial contemporary impact as measured by the number of highly cited papers produced, even if those papers, in terms of total citations, do not sum to more than that of other researchers who have longer publication and higher citation records over their entire careers.

I have been named a Highly Cited author in Engineering but my field and departmental affiliation is actually Mathematics. Would you change my designation to Mathematics?

We understand that you identify yourself as a mathematician, but we found your greatest impact, according to our analysis, to be in Engineering as it is defined in Essential Science Indicators. There is no universally agreed field classification scheme, and the use of journals to define fields is approximate at best. The practical advantage of our method is that we can fairly compare individuals against one another in the same consistently defined sphere.

I have a very common name, and some other people with the same name form (surname and initials) actually work in the same field that I do. How did you make sure not to confuse me and my papers with others and their papers in your analysis?

To ensure correct attribution of papers to authors, we used a combination of algorithmically disambiguating author information and manual inspection of highly cited papers. Manual review of the highly cited papers attributed to an author involves the examination of the subject of the papers as well as the journals in which they were published, review of the institutional addresses, and inspection of co-authorships. Often this was sufficient to resolve questions of authorship for a unique individual.

Original papers were sometimes consulted to obtain a full name not present in the Web of Science bibliographic record (papers indexed before 2008). Reference was made to websites of researchers themselves and their curricula vitae if questions remained, which sometimes arose when a researcher changed institutional affiliations several times during the period surveyed.

We would like to think our efforts to resolve authorship questions resulted in 100% clean data, but with any such effort and more than 6,000 researchers, we likely fell short in some few specific instances and will make adjustments where required.

You say you selected top researchers according to specific fields as defined in Essential Science Indicators. But what about researchers who have Highly Cited Papers across several fields, such as Molecular Biology and Genetics, Clinical Medicine, and Psychiatry/Psychology? How did you account for such cross-disciplinary impact?

In 2018 we have introduced a new Cross-Field category that aims to identify researchers who have contributed significantly to research across several different fields.

Please refer to the New this year: Cross-Field Category section for more information about this new category.

Did you apportion credit for Highly Cited Papers according to the number of authors on a paper? In some fields and especially with some Highly Cited Papers (high-energy physics, for example), papers reflect the work of large teams.

The current process uses the whole counting method for papers and citations – i.e. every author on a paper was apportioned equal credit.

With the increase of papers resulting from large teams, we are exploring whether there is advantage to fractional counting.

For more information on how we apportion credit for some fields that carry hundreds of author names, please refer to the Methodology section.

How do you handle cases in which a Highly Cited Paper is later retracted or an identified Highly Cited Researcher has been found to have committed scientific misconduct?

We do not count Highly Cited Papers that have been retracted. Researchers found to have committed scientific misconduct in formal proceedings conducted by a researcher’s institution, a government agency, a funder, or a publisher, are excluded from our list of Highly Cited Researchers.

Miscellaneous

I want to talk to someone at Clarivate about promoting Highly Cited Researchers at my institution.

If your institution’s press office or PR department would like to enquire about a media kit, please contact media.enquiries@clarivate.com

I believe I have a method that produces a result more consistent with the scientific community’s perception of top researchers in a field. Would you take into account my feedback?

We would appreciate your feedback! Please contact us at Clarivate Customer Care.

I want to talk to someone at Clarivate Analytics in detail about the methods used to generate this new list. How may I do so?

Thank you for your interest in our work. We would be glad to communicate with you. Please contact Clarivate Customer Care.

How do I access the previous lists of Highly Cited Researchers?

These lists are available as excel files in the archives section of Highly Cited Researchers website. View the files here.

Updating list information

I am a Highly Cited Researcher on the 2018 list. How do I update my primary or secondary affiliation to show my current position?

At this time we are no longer accepting any feedback on the 2018 Highly Cited Researcher list. Oct 31st 2018 was the last day to provide feedback or correction request.

I am a Highly Cited Researcher from a prior list (e.g. 2001, 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017). How do I update my primary or secondary affiliation to show my current position?

At this time we are no longer updating information present in prior year  lists.

I represent a university with which a Highly Cited Researcher is affiliated. How can I request the update of primary or secondary affiliation to show this relationship?

At this time we are no longer accepting any feedback on the 2018 Highly Cited Researcher list. Oct 31st 2018 was the last day to provide feedback or correction request.