News
Research.com rankings reviewed
Research.com is a platform that publishes a ranking of scientists in their specific discipline. Several WUR researchers were highly ranked in the second edition of their rankings. In this article, we review this ranking and provide some advice on how to use it.
How does Research.com create its rankings?
The new Research.com ranking was published last year for the first time. The data underlying the ranking are derived from OpenAlex (an open-source bibliographic database) and CrossRef. First, the h-index for each researcher is calculated, based on the number of publications and citations. Then a discipline-specific h-index: the D-index is calculated. The D-index is calculated by selecting publications only from the researcher’s specific discipline. The D-index is used to rank top scientists per discipline. Whether a researcher is considered a top scientist depends on the D-index threshold value. This value is different for each discipline. Research.com claims that it also uses data about the share of publications in journals or conferences, awards, fellowships and academic recognitions in its calculations. However, it doesn’t publish its full data sources and methodology.
Background information
Research.com initially published rankings of scientists in computer science and electronics. Last year, it changed its name from Guide2Research to Research.com and also expanded its scope to other fields, for example, Animal Science and Veterinary, Ecology and Evolution, and Environmental Sciences. Research.com actively markets its ranking and tries to raise broad interest in it. Researchers who rank highly in their discipline are likely to receive an email that states they belong to the best in their field. Research.com also offers downloadable award templates to showcase their ranking.
How to use the ranking outcomes?
Although the metrics of this ranking are based on trusted databases, we don’t recommend using it on, for example, grant applications or other formal documents. The methodology is not transparent, as it is unclear where Research.com obtains the data about awards. Furthermore, the ranking is almost entirely based on quantitative data: the number of citations and publications.
A strictly quantitative assessment of scientists has inherent shortcomings. For this reason, funders, universities and other organizations are stepping away from solely quantitative-based bibliometrics. WUR is developing a Recognition & Rewards programme where the focus is more on quality than on quantity. A ranking based on quantity only is not appropriate. In our opinion, Research.com falls short of meeting WUR’s standards for research evaluation, in general, as well as the scientific quality of individual researchers.
Questions?
For any questions on this article or on emails you might have received from Research.com, please contact the Library's Research Support team by emailing to the Servicedesk Facilities.