A Novel Methodology for Identifying the Top 1% Scientists Using a Composite Performance Index

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/publications13040055
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

There is a growing need for comprehensive and transparent frameworks in bibliometric evaluation that support fairer assessments and capture the multifaceted nature of research performance. This study proposes a novel methodology for identifying top-performing researchers based on a composite performance index (CPI). Unlike existing rankings, this framework presents a multidimensional approach by integrating sixteen weighted bibliometrics metrics, spanning research productivity, citation, publications in top journal percentiles, authorship roles, and international collaboration, into a single CPI, enabling a more nuanced and equitable evaluation of researcher performance. Data were retrieved from SciVal for 1996–2025. Two ranking exercises were conducted with Kazakhstan as the analytical unit. Subject-specific rankings identified the top 1% authors within different research areas, while subject-independent rankings highlighted the overall top 1%. CPI distributions varied markedly across disciplines. A comparative analysis with the Stanford/Elsevier global top 2% list was conducted as additional benchmarking. The results highlight that academic excellence depends on a broad spectrum of strengths beyond just productivity, particularly in competitive disciplines. The CPI provides a consistent and adaptable tool for assessing and recognizing research performance; however, future refinements should enhance data coverage, improve representation of early-career researchers, and integrate qualitative aspects.