Evaluation and selection

The Highly Cited Researchers program is an annual recognition of influential researchers in the sciences and social sciences from around the world, highlighting those who have demonstrated significant and broad influence in their field(s) of research.

Representing just 1 in 1,000 of the global research community, these individuals are identified based on their publication of Highly Cited Papers™ in the Web of Science Core Collection™- citation index − the world’s most trusted publisher-independent global citation database.

Using rigorously curated data, experts at the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) select individuals who have demonstrated remarkable influence in their field.

As the need for high-quality, reliable data from rigorously selected sources grows, we continue to refine our evaluation and selection policies to address the challenges of an increasingly complex and polluted scholarly record.

This year Clarivate awarded 6,886 Highly Cited Researcher designations to 6,636 individuals. The list focuses on contemporary research achievement as we survey Highly Cited Papers in trusted science and social sciences journals indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded™ and Social Sciences Citation Index™ during the 11-year period 2013 to 2023. The data derives from Essential Science Indicators™ (ESI), a component of InCites™.

For our 2024 analysis we reviewed Highly Cited Papers from 20 broad fields in ESI. These fields are defined by journal groupings and in the case of multidisciplinary journals such as Nature and Science, papers are individually assigned to a field based on cited reference analysis. Only article and review papers are considered; citations to letters, correction notices and other items are excluded. This year we have once again omitted the Mathematics category from our analysis.  See our FAQs section for further information.

Clarification of how we identify, request and publish primary researcher affiliations in the Highly Cited Researchers program.

We acknowledge that many of the individuals named to our list have genuine, complex research affiliations. Due to this complexity and high levels of mobility for many researchers, Clarivate asks candidates of the Highly Cited Researchers program to help verify their affiliations to us each year prior to launch.

Our published list then reflects the information available from the scholarly record (i.e., the contact details on their Highly Cited Papers across an eleven-year window), combined with any requested updates from the researchers themselves.

For this program a primary affiliation is defined as the researcher’s home institution – typically at a location where they reside, conduct the majority of their work as reflected in their publication record and usually hold a tenured position.

The incentives to achieve Highly Cited Researcher status are quite high in some nations and research systems and occasionally researchers are invited to become affiliated researchers at other institutions as part of a fellowship program.

A Research Fellowship is not recognized as a primary affiliation when we can clearly observe that a researcher is located elsewhere – and these individuals are not counted in our own ranking of nations or institutions.

In 2024 we introduced additional affiliation checks for complex cases to ensure the accuracy of our list. This may require input from contacts at the institutions reflected in a researcher’s recent publication record.

Clarivate endorses the actions of universities and research organizations to monitor and manage the activities and behaviors of their employees with respect to specifying correct home institutions which reflect their positions.

See our statement on this topic here.

There is no unique or universally agreed concept of what constitutes exceptional research performance and elite status in the sciences and social sciences and there are many highly accomplished and influential researchers who may not be recognized by our chosen method of evaluation and selection.

The only reasonable approach to interpreting a list of researchers such as ours is to fully understand our chosen method of evaluation and selection.

Consequently, no list can satisfy all expectations or requirements – a different basis or formula for selection would generate a different (though likely overlapping) list of names and the absence of a name on our list should not be interpreted as inferior performance or stature in comparison to others selected.

With that knowledge, the results may be judged by users as relevant or irrelevant to their needs or interests.