Citation metrics author database for many scientific fields

Jim Rice second, and many other friends in the ranking. Congratulations to John!

I am honored to be n.4 in Italy after Carpimteri, Pugno, Maier. All my esteemed friends and colleagues. Most of them I also have papers with. I think the ranking is really good.

Congratulations to all!

1 Hutchinson, John W. Harvard University usa 337 1964
2 Rice, James R. Harvard University usa 205 1966
3 Reddy, J.N. Texas A and M University usa 691 1973
4 Bhushan, Bharat Ohio State University usa 962 1966
5 Bejan, Adrian Duke University usa 579 1974
6 Patankar, Suhas V. 255 1965
7 Needleman, A. Texas A and M University usa 319 1972
8 Johnson, K.L. University of Cambridge gbr 129 1963
9 Suo, Zhigang Harvard University usa 380 1989
10 Majumdar, Arun Stanford University usa 388 1988
11 Fleck, N.A. University of Cambridge gbr 356 1981
12 Tvergaard, Viggo Technical University of Denmark dnk 273 1971
13 Gao, Huajian Brown University usa 453 1986
14 Gurtin, Morton E. Carnegie Mellon University usa 207 1960
15 Launder, B.E. University of Manchester gbr 237 1966
16 Hashin, Zvi Tel Aviv University isr 64 1961
17 Eringen, A.Cemal Princeton University usa 119 1960
18 Kandlikar, Satish G. Rochester Institute of Technologyusa 359 1975
19 Ortiz, M. California Institute of Technologyusa 342 1985
20 Shen, Hui‐Shen Shanghai Jiaotong University chn 245 1988
21 Rajagopal, K.R. Texas A and M University usa 529 1980
22 McMeeking, Robert M. University of California at Santa Busa 281 1975
23 Wang, Jian Shanghai Jiaotong University chn 1875 1985
24 Chaboche, J.L. 122 1974
25 Hill, Rodney University of Cambridge gbr 59 1960
26 Suh, Nam P. Massachusetts Institute of Techn usa 293 1966
27 Freund, L.B. University of Illinois at Urbana‐Chusa 193 1968
28 Willis, J.R. University of Cambridge gbr 182 1964
29 Wood, Robert J. Harvard University usa 523 1989
30 Nemat‐Nasser, Sia University of California at San Dieusa 325 1981
31 Faeth, G.M. University of Michigan usa 286 1967
32 Berryman, James G. Lawrence Berkeley National Labousa 189 1975
33 Sheikholeslami, M. 194 2011
34 Viskanta, Raymond Purdue University usa 525 1962
35 Vafai, Kambiz University of California at Riversidusa 308 1978
36 Nield, D.A. University of Auckland nzl 231 1966
37 Anand, Lallit Massachusetts Institute of Techn usa 134 1975
38 Han, Je‐Chin Texas A and M University usa 391 1980
39 Choi, Stephen U.S. University of Illinois at Chicago usa 56 1990
40 McDowell, David L. Georgia Institute of Technology usa 406 1985
41 Dowson, D. University of Leeds gbr 537 1963
42 Etsion, I. Technion‐Israel Institute of Technisr 366 1966
43 Kim, Young‐Jin Chonnam National University kor 936 1980
44 Prasher, Ravi Lawrence Berkeley National Labousa 184 1997
45 Thome, John R. Ecole Polytechnique Federale de che 326 1979
46 Gao, Wei Hohai University chn 1286 1984
47 Rodi, Wolfgang 278 1966
48 Batra, R.C. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and usa 471 1971

the paper which is making big noise is

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0221212

Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis

Alberto Baccini ,Giuseppe De Nicolao,Eugenio Petrovich

which suggests, because of biblimetric incentives, italians made an exageration of selfcitations in the late years.

Plos-ONE is I beleive on an inferior rank journal than Plos-Biology, one of those you pay to appear into.........

However, the Plos-ONE paper appeared covered in the main italian newspaper, Corriere della SERA, because it is more easy to call it a scandal, than a pure ranking of nice scientists

https://www.corriere.it/cronache/19_settembre_11/i-professori-si-citano-...

in the Plos-Biology Ioannides papers, we would exclude self-citations, how many more italians would be in the 100k instead of 2000?

I have no time to check.

 I have been one of the most active promoters of Ioannides ranking in Italy, and the most appropriate criticism I have found comes from mathematicians.

I went to look for names of established mathematicians, starting with the last 8 Fields Medals, and the result is this:

Maryam Mirzakhani       absent

Martin Hairer                   absent

Manjul Bhargava         absent

Artur Avila                     absent

Caucher Birkar          absent

Alessio Figalli                 absent

Peter Scholze                   absent

Akshai Venkatesh                absent

Maybe the mathematicians were not considered? No, here are some, three Medals and two famous Italians, with their respective positions in the standings:

Luigi Ambrosio  11604   CNR (?)

Michael Atiyah  26058

Steve Smale             26324

Cedric Villani          40253

Gianni Dal Maso 98906

What is wrong with the mathematicians in the ranking?

Here is the answer. Mathematics has the lowest citation density of any scientific field because there is very few mathematicians as opposed to say geneticists or physicists or or any other field experts. This means that very few mathematicians will make it to the top 100000 of the aggregate list but as is said in the paper they advise people not to use the aggregate but look separately for each field, otherwise it makes no sense to compare geneticists against mathematicians.

The few mathematicians that are making it to the career 100000 list are mostly older ones where their work had sufficient time to accrue citations. By definition Fields medals are awarded to people very early in their careers, in their thirties, sometimes even before tenure, so it is expected that the recent Field medalists will not make it. What I am curious though is whether you think that those who did make it are not really very good mathematicians (even if older on average).

Moreover, Hairer, Avila and Figalli are included in the top 100000 in the S2 file...

See also coverage in Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02725-y?fbclid=IwAR3y6zMpsGZcURFsimDR7BepgAeOkz_rQFrzv8HahPhW-BkLjwS23UbTmDs

Not everyone is so convinced. John Ioannidis, a specialist in metascience studies at Stanford University in California, says the change in national self-citations doesn’t seem particularly extreme, and might be due to chance. He added that if the increase is real, it could have been driven by a minority of researchers.