What’s the Value of a Scientist Ranking That Excludes 90% of Nobel Laureates?

https://19-pacheco-torgal-19.blogspot.com/2024/11/portugal-clear-case-study-highlighting.html

Building on my previous post from last November, which highlighted a compelling case study exposing the significant flaws in Clarivate's HCR list, I’d like to draw attention to another valuable contribution on this topic. Recently published on January 25 in the journal Scientometrics, the paper is authored by three German researchers affiliated with the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research and the Max Planck Society. Among them is Lutz Bornmann, the esteemed recipient of the De Solla Prize. The study provides further insights into the inherent weaknesses and limitations of Clarivate's ranking methodology.

One of the most striking aspects of this paper is captured in Figure 5, which paints a sobering picture of just how poorly Clarivate’s HCR list performs when evaluated against the highest standard of scientific excellence: Nobel laureates. Astonishingly, the HCR list manages to include only about 10% of Nobel Prize-winning scientists, inexplicably excluding the vast majority of these globally recognized leaders in their fields. This fundamental oversight raises serious questions about the credibility and utility of Clarivate's rankings as a measure of scientific impact.

In stark contrast, the Stanford Scientist ranking emerges as a far more robust alternative. According to the paper, this ranking successfully identifies over 90% of Nobel laureates, showcasing its superior accuracy, methodology, and alignment with true measures of excellence in science. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-05158-1#Sec11