Skip to main content

The injustice of rankings

I've just seen the Top 100 Chemists list, as collected by ISI. In it, they report the impact these chemists have made by dividing the total number of citations by the number of papers in the years 2000-2010. So far, so good.

However, by doing the ranking myself, I noticed that the scientist with the most impact (Charles M. Lieber, 240 citations per paper on average) in fact does not belong to the top. He is not even in the top 100!!!
(according to Essential Science Indicators, he's actually number 123)

What is wrong? Am I looking at different things? No.
ISI has looked only at chemists with at least 50 papers.
This is reminiscent of the h-index, where not the total number of citations count, but also the number of well-cited papers; i.e. an author with one well-cited paper (J.S. Cottrell, or D.M. Creasy, or D.J.C. Pappin, all with 2715 citations for 1 paper) has a h-index of 1, while a scientist like Charles Lieber (75 papers, 18200 citations) has probably at least a h-index of 75 (according to WOS, in total his is 107).
In itself this filtering makes some sense, but can have some unwanted side-effects. For instance, what to think of K.L. Kelly with an average of 366 citations per paper? This might still be debatable, because 10 is still a small number of papers.

However, injustice is being done to (at least) two chemists: Mohamed Eddaoudi and George M. Sheldrick. The former obtained 13196 citations for 39 papers (338 on average!), while the latter obtained 10084 citations for 47 papers, with an average of 215 per paper. This would have made him fourth (counting Eddaoudi) or third (not counting Eddaoudi), were it not for the fact that 47 is just below the magic threshold of 50...

George and Mohamed, if you want to complain to ISI, you've got my support!


Popular posts from this blog

Impact of Plan S on Chemistry research in Europe

Below is given a list of journals that are present at the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) and that are listed in one of the seven categories in Chemistry in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR): ·CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL ·CHEMISTRY, APPLIED ·CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR ·CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL ·CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY ·CHEMISTRY, ORGANIC ·CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL These seven categories include all 553 journals in Chemistry (see Appendix 1), except some general scientific journals like Nature, Science, Nature Communications, Scientific Reports, etc. and also does not include new initiatives like iScienceChem Squared
The full list of 49 DOAJ entries in Chemistry (8.9% of all Chemistry journals) is given in Appendix 2, but shown here below is the list of 11 journals (2.0% of all Chemistry journals in JCR!!!!) that I recognize[1]:
·ACS Central Science·Catalysts·Chemical Science·ChemistryOpen·Croatica Chemica Acta·Frontiers in Chemistry·International Journal of Molecular Sciences·Journ…

Impact of Plan-S on European Research in 10 scientific disciplines

A few weeks ago I posted already the troubling current situation for Chemistry, where out of 553 journals listed in Journal Citation Reportsonly 48 journals[1] are included in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and only 11 were known to me (i.e. 2.0%).

Today I add the same analysis for nine more fields in scientific research (Bio, CompSci, Engin, Math, MatSci, Med, Phys, Psych, Social)[2][3], with similar results. Out of the total of 4773 journals listed in JCR for these disciplines, only 399 are listed in DOAJ (8.4%).

Within the field of Chemistry, the majority of the 48 JCR/DOAJ journals were not known to me, and often included local/national journals. Assuming that the same holds for the other disciplines, and using a conservative estimate for this proportion of unknown journals (at least half), one comes to the conclusion that for the ten fields of science listed below, only ca. 2-4% of scientific journals is currently compliant with Plan S.

FieldNr. in JCRNr. in DOAJBio…

Exotic chemistry trumps nature

A few weeks ago the Twitter world was surprised by several Tweets where Chemistry played a big role. First of all, @StuartCantrill posted a cry for help:
Can somebody please hurry up and make a cyclic trimer from livermorium – I'm desperate to use 'Bizarre Lv triangle' as a cover line at NChem — Stuart Cantrill (@stuartcantrill) May 26, 2017 A few days later there was a late-night typo by @RealDonaldTrump:
Despite the constant negative press covfefe — Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) May 30, 2017 which was deleted the next day (but that does not work), and replaced by a challenge:
Who can figure out the true meaning of "covfefe" ??? Enjoy! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017
This obviously calls for a #CompChem solution, and hence I accepted the challenge and proposed a structure for the cyclic trimer livermorium (at BP86/TZ2P with Spin-Orbit ZORA as done within the ADF program):
something like this?
(cyclic Lv3 trimer with odd orbitals) pic.twit…