The issuance of the 2022 edition of the Stanford/Elsevier 2% top scientists global citations database (data up to 2021, see HERE) sparked a wave of announcements on social media, mostly by folks and/or universities, to announce being in the top 2%, but also occasionally giving some more details. This is reasonable, and I posted one myself, to the effect that I ranked No. 38 in the 2022 list of 19,216 scientists with 5 or more citations who have "Logistics and Transportation" as their primary subfield. Last year and 2 years ago I was No. 39, so that is an improvement (even though it is surely "in the noise"). Ι clarify that the number of L&T people in the approx. 200,000 top 2% database is 402.
38 divided by 19,216 is about 0.2%, so I can claim that I am within 0.2% of my field (or, 10% of the 2%). This is, I admit, a pleasant surprise.
But is that result really important? I honestly do not know. Is it something that I want to boast about? Surely not. Or, even worse, do I want to give an interview to the press that because of this I am one of the top influencers in my field, however the latter is defined? God no, as my view on the citations chase is on record. I still feel that the citations issue is way overblown.
Having said that, I had an interchange with a prominent colleague who is into Logistics and Transportation, is very prolific, and has many citations. He wondered why he is not on the L&T list. The answer is, he is on another list (the one in which "Operations Research" is the primary subfield of its members). It should be realized that people are on a certain list not because they choose to, but based on the topics they have published throughout their careers. It is the system as designed by Stanford/Elsevier that determines one's primary (and secondary) subfields. I am not sure I like that system, but it is what it is.
The topics that make one to be included in the L&T list can be very diverse. For instance, many of my own citations are in the area of dynamic vehicle routing, a rather esoteric subject that I worked on some time ago. Same with others. One's secondary subfield may give a clue on that, and the list of secondary subfields if one has L&T as primary subfield is very broad. It includes Economics, Geography, Urban & Regional Planning, Human Factors, Public Health, Operations Research, Civil Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, and even Fluids and Plasmas. A couple of years ago, there were only 16 other people in the entire 100,000+ people 2% database whose both primary and secondary subfields were the same as mine. That makes it difficult to compare people. It still strikes me that we (L&T) are lower than Ornithology and Entomology in terms of 99-percentile citations.
Then I was amused to read an online magazine interview by another prominent colleague, who ranks a bit higher than me in the above L&T list (around No. 20 plus or minus 5 points; I do not want to name him), claiming that he is the No. 1 influencer in the field of "maritime economics". The interviewee also states, among other things, that he is modest by nature.
Even though I might be among the first to applaud this colleague's impressive academic performance (really), his line of reasoning is a bit problematic.
First, there is no logical argument why the group of maritime economists (however that is defined) is a subset of the L&T list. Stanford's/Elsevier's list of subfields (some 161 in 2022), which is based on the Science-Metrix journal classification system, does not include maritime economics in it. Moreover, people who consider themselves as maritime economists (and there can be many) may have another subfield of the Stanford/Elsevier database as their primary subfield (for instance, Economics, Business and Management, Operations Research, or other), and not necessarily L&T.
So who is to determine if one is a maritime economist since the group is undefined and the designation does not happen automatically in the Stanford/Elsevier (or other) system? It is basically a matter of personal choice. If I consider myself a maritime economist, maybe I am one. Or, I may be a member of a professional society like IAME (the International Association of Maritime Economists), or of another related professional subgroup, for instance "maritime terminal economists". Or, I may have written many maritime economics related papers (but then again, how is the field defined?).
Whether or not (and when) I wear my maritime economist hat may be also a matter of personal choice. I may choose not to wear it now, or choose to wear another hat for a particular occasion, if that suits me. In fact I may have several hats which I choose how to juggle.
So I would rather be careful if I want to claim that based on my L&T ranking I am the top influencer among a group that (a) is undefined as a subfield by Stanford/Elsevier, (b) may be spread across several different subfields of the Stanford/Elsevier database, other than L&T, and (c) membership in that group is a matter of personal choice.
If I make that claim, I must also be aware that some other colleagues, ranked higher than me in the Stanford/ Elsevier database, either in the same primary subfield as me (L&T), or in another subfield, may also claim to belong to the same ill-defined maritime economists group in which I consider myself as No. 1. And they may claim to be No. 1 as well, based on a similar logic. In the specific example mentioned above, I know of some other colleagues ranked higher than the colleague in question, who could also be considered to belong to the maritime economists group, if they wanted to, or simply if they were aware of it.
Or, I could judiciously define a group so that I am No. 1 in it. For instance, maritime economists who have also published papers in urban, or air transportation. Or, maritime economists who have also run a major port.
But I would rather not mess with all that.
In my opinion, one can make the argument that these numbers are fine and being on the 2% list or its designated subsets is remarkable and laudable. But they should be interpreted with caution. A colleague who has some 8 times my citations told me he is convinced that most people who cite his papers have never read them. Plus, we have no control on who reads our papers.
Like I said before, we can live without bibliometrics.
As regards who are the real influencers, wait for a next blog (it is surely not me).
No comments:
Post a Comment