The Shifting Landscape of Research Excellene: A Regional Analysis of Highly Cited Researchers (2020-2024)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14513/tge-jres.00424Keywords:
highly cited researcher, research cluster, regionAbstract
Purpose – The aim of this study is to examine the regional distribution of Highly Cited Researchers from 2020 to 2024, and to explore the dynamics of research excellence across different regions. The analysis is conducted not only on a global level but also at the level of 21 research clusters.
Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on the annually published Highly Cited Researchers list by Clarivate. The first phase of the study determined the regional distribution of 34,225 Highly Cited Researchers between 2020 and 2024. Subsequently, the focus shifted to the distribution of HCRs across 21 research clusters, analyzed on an annual basis.
Findings – Although North America holds the leading position in the number of Highly Cited Researchers during the examined period, Asia—particularly China—shows significant growth. Asia surpassed Europe in 2023 and 2024. The cluster-specific regional distribution exhibits substantial heterogeneity. North America dominates most research clusters; however, there are notable instances of Asia's strong advancement. The results also reveal a significant linear relationship between Highly Cited Papers and Highly Cited Researchers.
Originality – This is the first study to analyze the changes in the regional distribution of Highly Cited Researchers in a 5-year time window. While Asia’s global representation in scientific outputs has been long recognized, our findings emphasize global trends at the level of research clusters and highlight the need to reconsider research and cooperation strategies.
References
Abduh, A. J. (2023, January 22). A critical analysis of the world’s top 2% most influential scientists: Examining the limitations and biases of highly cited researchers lists. Authorea Preprints. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.167435298.80209125/v1
Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2013). The impact of unproductive and top researchers on overall university research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.10.006
Aghion, P., Antonin, C., & Bunel, S. (2021). The power of creative destruction: Economic upheaval and the wealth of nations. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674258686
Aksnes, D. W., & Aagaard, K. (2021). Lone geniuses or one among many? An explorative study of contemporary highly cited researchers. Journal of Data and Information Science, 6(2), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0019
Basu, A. (2006). Using ISI’s “Highly Cited Researchers” to obtain a country level indicator of citation excellence. Scientometrics, 68(3), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0117-x
Bauwens, L., Mion, G., & Thisse, J.-F. (2012). The resistible decline of European science. Recherches Économiques de Louvain, 77(4), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.3917/rel.774.0005
Bornmann, L., & Bauer, J. (2015). Which of the world’s institutions employ the most highly cited researchers? An analysis of the data from highlycited.com. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2146–2148. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23396
Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2015). Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts? Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.006
Chaignon, L., Docampo, D., & Egret, D. (2023). In search of a scientific elite: Highly cited researchers (HCR) in France. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04805-3
Chi, P.-S. (2016). Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature? Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 814–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.05.005
Clarivate. (2024). Highly cited researchers – Past list. https://clarivate.com/highly-cited-researchers/past-lists/
Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1997-0
Demeter, M., Pelle, V., Mikulás, G., & Goyanes, M. (2022). Higher quantity, higher quality? Current publication trends of the most productive journal authors in the field of communication studies. Publishing Research Quarterly, 38(3), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09893-2
Docampo, D., Egret, D., & Cram, L. (2015). The effect of university mergers on the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics, 104(1), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1587-5
Docampo, D., & Cram, L. (2019). Highly cited researchers: A moving target. Scientometrics, 118(3), 1011–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2993-2
Egret, D., Chaignon, L., & Docampo, D. (2024). Mapping the paths of highly cited researchers: A comprehensive look at the 2023 cross-field distribution. Scientometrics, 129(11), 7107–7129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05151-8
Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLOS ONE, 5(4), e10271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271
Frenken, K., Hoekman, J., Kok, S., Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & van Vliet, J. (2009). Death of distance in science? A gravity approach to research collaboration. In A. Pyka & A. Scharnhorst (Eds.), Innovation networks (pp. 43–57). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92267-4_3
Frietsch, R., Gruber, S., & Bornmann, L. (2025). The definition of highly cited researchers: The effect of different approaches on the empirical outcome. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05158-1
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108
Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90
Johann, D., Neufeld, J., Thomas, K., Rathmann, J., & Rauhut, H. (2024). The impact of researchers’ perceived pressure on their publication strategies. Research Evaluation. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae011
Jonkers, K., & Tijssen, R. (2008). Chinese researchers returning home: Impacts of international mobility on research collaboration and scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 77(2), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1971-x
Klein, A.-M., & Kranke, N. (2023). Some thoughts on transparency of the data and analysis behind the Highly Cited Researchers list. Scientometrics, 128(12), 6773–6780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04852-w
Kwiek, M. (2018). High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems: Who are the top performers? Scientometrics, 115(1), 415–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2644-7
Larivière, V., & Costas, R. (2016). How many is too many? On the relationship between research productivity and impact. PLOS ONE, 11(9), e0162709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162709
Lee, J. J., & Haupt, J. P. (2020). Winners and losers in US-China scientific research collaborations. Higher Education, 80(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00464-7
Li, J. T. (2016). What we learn from the shifts in highly cited data from 2001 to 2014? Scientometrics, 108(1), 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1958-6
Li, J. T. (2018). On the advancement of highly cited research in China: An analysis of the Highly Cited database. PLOS ONE, 13(4), e0196341. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196341
Lukács, E., Kovács, Z., Völgyi, K., & Filep, B. (2020). A „keleti nyitás” politika szerepe a magyar felsőoktatás és a Széchenyi István Egyetem nemzetköziesítésében [The role of the economic policy “Opening to the East” in the internationalization of Széchenyi István University and the Hungarian higher education system]. Külügyi Szemle, 19(1), 80–104.
Lukács, E., & Völgyi, K. (2018). Mega-FTAs in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Japanese perspective. European Journal of East Asian Studies, 17(1), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700615-01701008
Lukács, E., & Völgyi, K. (2021). Chinese foreign direct investments in Hungary from the perspective of BRI, international capacity cooperation, and Made in China 2025. Contemporary Chinese Political Economy and Strategic Relations, 7(1), 413–446.
Lukács, E., Völgyi, K., Filep, B., & Kovács, Z. (2021). The role of the economic policy “Opening to the East” in the internationalization of Széchenyi István University and the Hungarian higher education system. In China-Hungary relations: Economic policy and higher education (pp. 83–109).
Martinez, M., & Sá, C. (2020). Highly cited in the South: International collaboration and research recognition among Brazil’s highly cited researchers. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319888890
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002
Nemeth, P., Torma, A., Lukacs, E., & Filep, B. (2023). Sustainability opportunities and barriers at universities: Development of a sustainable university environment. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 107, 505–510. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET23107085
Piro, F. N., Rørstad, K., & Aksnes, D. W. (2016). How does prolific professors influence on the citation impact of their university departments? Scientometrics, 107(3), 941–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1900-y
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), 497. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
Shu, F., Liu, S., & Larivière, V. (2022). China’s research evaluation reform: What are the consequences for global science? Minerva, 60(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09468-7
Szomszor, M., Pendlebury, D. A., & Adams, J. (2020). How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess. Scientometrics, 123(2), 1119–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5
Tollefson, J. (2018). China declared world’s largest producer of scientific articles. Nature, 553(7689), 390. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-00927-4
Völgyi, K., & Lukács, E. (2014). A délkelet-ázsiai régió integrációs sikere: az ASEAN egységes termelési bázis [Integration success of Southeast Asia – the ASEAN single production base]. Tér és Társadalom, 28(4), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.17649/tet.28.4.2601
Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
Wang, X., Wang, Z., Huang, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Ren, H., et al. (2017). Measuring interdisciplinarity of a research system: Detecting distinction between publication categories and citation categories. Scientometrics, 111(3), 2023–2039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2348-4
Zanotto, S. R., Haeffner, C., & Guimarães, J. A. (2016). Unbalanced international collaboration affects adversely the usefulness of countries’ scientific output as well as their technological and social impact. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1789–1814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2126-8
Zeng, A., Fan, Y., Di, Z., Wang, Y., & Havlin, S. (2022). Impactful scientists have higher tendency to involve collaborators in new topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(33), e2207436119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207436119
Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.006
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Zsolt Kohus (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
