Science should move past ‘top 2%’ label

Why in the News

India’s presence in the “top 2% scientists’ database”, a citation-based ranking of researchers, is rising, and inclusion is increasingly read as proof of excellence. The database’s own creators warn against that reading. Treating inclusion as a target, or exclusion as a lack of worth, distorts how science is judged.

What is the ‘top 2%’ database, and why is it misread?

1. The ‘top 2%’ database: The database ranks scientists by their publication and citation records in Scopus, a large database of research papers and their citations, much like a popularity count.
2. Visibility as recognition: International visibility is one form of recognition, so scientists value a place on the list.
3. Creators’ caution: John Ioannidis and his collaborators, who created the database, caution against treating inclusion as conclusive evidence of research excellence.
4. The takeaway: Many Indian scientists make important contributions whether or not they are listed, so their work must be judged on its own merits.

What are the database’s built-in limitations?

1. No originality check: The ranking counts publications and citations without checking whether the work is original.
2. Profile and discipline errors: Mistakes in author profiles, or in how disciplines are classified, change the results.
3. Regional languages ignored: Work published in regional languages is not counted.
4. Author position: For multi-author papers, the score weighs an author’s place in the author list, but that order means different things across disciplines.
5. Blind citation counts: Scores are given with and without self-citations (authors citing their own papers). A count cannot show whether a paper is appreciated, challenged or merely mentioned.

What evidence shows the list misjudges merit?

1. Missing Nobel laureates: An analysis by John Philip found several physics and chemistry Nobel laureates absent from the list, so scientists of real merit can be left out.
2. Journalists listed as scientists: A 2026 study in the journal *Scientometrics* found science journalists, such as Clare Dyer and Jacqui Wise, in the 2025 list. So the list does not separate original research from science reporting.
3. Retracted work counted: The same study found an author with 217 retracted papers on the list.

How could chasing the label distort Indian research?

1. Long-gestation research: Some research takes several years to reach conclusive results, and both basic and applied work need sustained effort.
2. Pressure on young scientists: A young scientist may pick a popular topic for its likely citations instead of following their own interests.
3. Chandrayaan-3: The landing in the Moon’s south polar region was a team effort combining advanced instruments, engineering and scientific insight.
4. Other Indian breakthroughs: Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras’s SHAKTI microprocessors, the indigenous 4G technology stack and Serum Institute’s CERVAVAC vaccine improved lives, whether or not their scientists are listed.
5. NexCAR19 cancer therapy: IIT Bombay, Tata Memorial Centre and ImmunoACT developed this therapy, an advance judged by results, not citations.

How are research funders moving beyond citation counts?

1. Changing assessment: International research assessment initiatives are changing how they judge scientific contributions.
2. Swiss National Science Foundation: The Foundation asks applicants to leave citation counts, journal rankings and institutional rankings out of their CVs, so that research is judged on quality.
3. Comprehensive recognition: India needs both fundamental research and practical solutions, so it must recognise those who discover, build, explain or enable others.

Challenges

1. Metric as target: Once a listing becomes a goal, researchers chase citations instead of quality or usefulness.
2. Citation pull at home: Indian institutional assessment also leans on publication and citation counts. Eg. The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) scores research partly on them.
3. Unseen contributions: Building hardware, delivering missions and explaining science to the public do not show up as citations.

Way Forward

1. Drop metrics from applications: Indian funding agencies should ask applicants to leave out citation counts and journal rankings, following the Swiss approach.
2. Judge by evidence of impact: Evaluation panels should assess advances in knowledge, practical applications and improvements in people’s lives.
3. Back long-gestation work: Funders should give multi-year support without early citation targets.

Conclusion

A citation-based list is a weak proxy for scientific merit, and treating it as a goal steers research toward popular topics. The open question is whether Indian funders adopt assessment that judges discovery, building and explanation on their merits.

Key numbers

1. Physics Nobel laureates missing: 12 of 71 laureates from 1998 to 2022 (John Philip analysis, 2023).
2. Chemistry Nobel laureates missing: 2 of 66 laureates from 1998 to 2022 (same analysis).

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2014, GS3, 12 marks] Scientific research in Indian universities is declining, because a career in science is not as attractive as our business operations, engineering or administration, and the universities are becoming consumer oriented. Critically comment.”