Abstract

This paper analytically analyzes the use and limitations of ranking systems for highly cited researchers compiled by Stanford University’s ranking of the world’s top 2% most influential scientists. This list is commonly used to identify influential and respected members of a particular field. However, it is important to critically evaluate the list and its methodology and  no such analysis to this date. From a critical analysis of the September 2022 version of this world’s top 2% of scientists list, this research finds that the database of the list is flawed, including inaccurately listing researchers as first publishing in the 19th century and continuing to publish until 2022, listing authors with low publication numbers and career lengths, mixing news articles and editorials with research papers, listing institutes as authors rather than individuals, and listing authors with a high percentage of self-citations. The study suggests that the promotion and use of such “standardized” citation rankings should be discouraged.