6 months ago
3
Stanford University prof John Ioannidis precocious published the latest mentation of the database of the world’s apical 2% scientists. Its merchandise each twelvemonth causes overmuch excitement among scientists and their institutions. And each twelvemonth for a fewer weeks after, hardly a time passes without aggregate announcements of the beingness of Indian scientists connected this database by galore institutions, from well-known to obscure, connected assorted media platforms. They tout the honour arsenic designation of their technological excellence; indeed, galore of these institutes adjacent assertion the accomplishment wouldn’t person been imaginable without their relation successful creating and sustaining an enabling probe environment.
The 2025 list was published successful September and ranked astir 2.3 lakh scientists worldwide — themselves filtered retired of a excavation of 2.2 crore. This supposedly exalted fraction, which included respective Nobel laureates, besides counted 6,239 scientists from India. This fig has been steadily expanding implicit the past fewer years.
Link to quality
The apical 10 scientists from India successful the 2025 database person been ranked 288 to 952 and are with Muthayammal Engineering College (Tamil Nadu), University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (Uttarakhand), Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology (Punjab), Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (Uttar Pradesh), Sikkim University, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (Karnataka), Saveetha School of Engineering (Tamil Nadu), Government Degree College Pulwama (Jammu & Kashmir), and S.V. National Institute of Technology (Gujarat).
This representation was much oregon little the aforesaid successful 2024, erstwhile the apical 10 Indian scientists were ranked 163 to 1568 and lesser-known institutions dominated.
Curiously, six of the 7 subject Nobel laureates connected the database ranked 1,373-28,782 — acold little than the lowest ranked (top 10) Indian scientist. Indeed, to accidental that it is beauteous astounding that adjacent the lowest Indian idiosyncratic (top 10) performed mode amended connected this database than each but 1 of the Nobel laureates is an understatement.
Whether this spread is really linked to probe prime successful a meaningful mode is, however, a abstracted question — 1 besides elicited by the information that the apical 10 scientists are not affiliated with Indian probe centres mostly associated with fantabulous R&D. To recognize this disconnect, we request to recognize what technological probe is and however it is routinely evaluated successful the prevailing world ecosystem.
Standing connected shoulders
Scientific probe begins erstwhile scientists person a question astir immoderate reflection that has caught their interest. They formulate a proposal and trial it with experiments. Depending connected the needs of each experiment, they whitethorn devise tools, interact with different scientists to get antithetic perspectives, stitchery evidence, and analyse them to gully conclusions. Then they constitute up their findings successful reports, commonly known arsenic papers, which are reviewed by their peers and published successful technological journals. These papers carnivore the names of the scientists, truthful the scientists are besides called authors.
The immense bulk of technological probe contiguous builds connected the enactment of others. So the authors of a insubstantial mention an older insubstantial — similar an acknowledgment that besides adds 1 much nexus to the concatenation of cognition — wherever its findings are applicable successful their existent work. When 1 insubstantial has been cited by different insubstantial once, it’s said to person accrued 1 citation.
Scientists’ enactment is often evaluated by the fig of citations their papers person garnered. But determination is simply a catch: determination has been a naïve presumption for a portion present that scientists ever lone mention good-quality papers, which successful crook has fed the conception that a paper’s citation fig is indicative of its impact. But determination is nary request for this to ever beryllium true.
Evaluating science
Prof. Ioannidis prepares his database based connected a planetary database of published probe called Scopus. It is owned by Elsevier, a publishing institution that is often accused of taking vantage of the ‘publish oregon perish’ civilization successful academia to gain profits rivalling those of Google and Microsoft.
For his analysis, Prof. Ioannidis developed a composite score, called c-score, for each idiosyncratic successful Scopus and ranked them successful the descending bid of their c-scores.
The c-score gives adjacent weightage to aggregate parameters including the full fig of citations, the h-index (a metric that links the citation fig to the numbers of papers published by a scientist), the fig of papers, the bid of authors successful papers, co-authorship, and truthful on.
The ranking besides includes scientists crossed respective antithetic fields and sub-fields. Comparing scientists successful this way, crossed a breadth of enterprises, is mostly considered problematic, similar comparing apples to oranges. Also, contrary to fashionable perception, Stanford University neither participates successful the ranking process nor endorses the list. The effort is the idiosyncratic inaugural of Prof. Ioannidis.
Nobel Prize v. c-score
To recognize wherefore Indian scientists from small known probe centres fertile supra Nobel laureates connected the list, the c-score is simply a bully starting point. While Prof. Ioannidis and immoderate others person said it provides a much broad snapshot of a scientist’s impact, it has superior limitations. It gives other value to papers wherever the idiosyncratic is first, azygous oregon past writer assuming that these positions connote large intelligence contribution, but this signifier is not azygous crossed fields; it doesn’t relationship for differences successful citation practices betwixt fields; assumes the Scopus database covers each disciplines arsenic (it doesn’t); and ignores quantitative impact.
The last effect is for a scientist’s c-score to beryllium divorced from the existent technological contented of their work, particularly successful presumption of its quality, validity, and publication to subject and society. Indeed, contempt their different flaws, the process of identifying Nobel prize-winning scientists takes into relationship each that the c-score misses.
As with each metrics, the c-score tin besides beryllium gamed, particularly by individuals who pre-agree to mention each other’s papers irrespective of the prime of their ain papers oregon whether the citations are due and warranted. This overmuch is evident from the impossibly precocious levels of productivity — 1-2 papers per week — of galore highly ranked Indian scientists. The rankings besides don’t relationship for papers that are aboriginal retracted for misconduct, specified arsenic by including a punishment successful the c-score formula. Indeed, the Scopus database itself includes galore dubious journals and publishers with small respect for probe ethics.
Without knowing the c-score successful this way, 1 is liable to construe Indian scientists outranking Nobel laureates successful Prof. Ioannidis’ database arsenic the former’s overlooked greatness — but 1 shouldn’t beryllium forgiven for doing so. Like galore different metrics that flatten the multi-dimensional endeavor that is technological probe into one-dimensional numbers, the c-score is fundamentally a vanity metric. Instead, researchers and their employers should absorption connected doing bully probe and the probe constitution should absorption connected facilitating that — alternatively than pursuit numbers.
Swaminathan S. is retired professor, BITS Pilani – Hyderabad, and erstwhile idiosyncratic astatine ICGEB, New Delhi.
