Hundreds of academics have been excluded from an influential list of highly cited scholars for “hyper-prolific authorship” – with the majority based in China.

A total of 6,868 individuals from more than 1,300 institutions were recognised on the list published on 12 November for work that has demonstrated broad and significant influence in their fields.

These researchers were based in 60 countries and regions but Clarivate noted a “remarkable” concentration of talent – 86 per cent were based in the top 10 countries, and 75 per cent in the first five alone.

The US has the largest number of top scholars, with 2,670 awards – 37 per cent of the global total. This was a 1 per cent rise on 2024 and the first increase in its share since 2019.

̽����Ƶ

The opposite trend was true of China, which had 1,406 awards, the second largest number. This 20 per cent share represents its first decrease in at least six years but its absolute total continued to rise.

The US’ world share dropped 7 per cent between 2018 and 2024, while China’s increased 13 per cent over the same period. Clarivate said one reason for this was the strengthening of screening methods and more systematically applied filters which have impacted China more than the US.

̽����Ƶ

A total of 432 potential awards were excluded for an “extreme” level of hyper-prolific authorship over the past five years – the majority of which were based in China. The US had the second highest number of exclusions, while no other nation had more than 10 exclusions for hyper-prolific authorship.

“Hyper-prolific authorship is a rising concern for those seeking to understand true contributions and meaningful credit,” Clarivate said.

Clarivate said its “rigorous” evaluation and selection process draws on data from the Web of Science Core Collection, and uses quantitative metrics and qualitative analysis to identify researchers whose work has had a genuine, global influence.

Analysts from the Institute for Scientific Information also removed researchers from the list as a result of concerns around research integrity. This year, mathematics scholars were reintroduced after previous concerns that the field was dominated by researchers in one sub-area.

̽����Ƶ

In total, about 2,400 individuals were excluded this year – up from 2,000 in 2024.

“These figures are sobering, and they highlight the need for deep qualitative review alongside any quantitative assessments in analysing the research literature,” said Clarivate.

China and the US were followed in the highly cited list by the UK (8 per cent of global share), Germany (5 per cent) and Australia (4 per cent) – the same positions as last year.

US institutions occupied more than half (12) of the top 20 spots in the ranking and five of the top 10, including Harvard University (second), Stanford University (third) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (fifth).

̽����Ƶ

With 258 awards, the Chinese Academy of Sciences was the top institution globally, and Tsinghua University was fourth – among three Chinese universities in the global top 20.

The University of Oxford (joint eighth), UCL (joint eighth) and the University of Cambridge (15th) were the UK’s top performers.

̽����Ƶ

patrick.jack@timeshighereducation.com