A total of nine parameters, the “AD Scientific Index” shows the ranking of an individual scientist by 12 subject
(Agriculture & Forestry, Arts, Design and Architecture, Business & Management, Economics & Econometrics,
Education, Engineering & Technology, History, Philosophy, Theology, Law / Law and Legal Studies, Medical
and Health Sciences, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Others), 256 branch, 13,542 institution, 206
country, 11 region (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, Arab Leageu, EECA, BRICS,
Latin America and COMESA) and in the world. The “AD Scientific Index” is the first and only study that shows
the total and the last five-year productivity coefficients of scientists based on the h-index and i10 index scores
and citations in Google Scholar. In other words, the “AD Scientific Index” provides both the academic ranking
and analysis results.
One of the major differences of the AD Scientific Index is the provision of the last five years’ scores and the
total scores of the h-index and the i10 index, and the total and last five years’ number of citations. Other unique
differences of the AD Scientific Index include rankings in all fields and subjects of scientific interest and the
emphasis on the scientific productivity of the scientist. Productivity Rankings is a unique service offered only by
“AD Scientific Index”. This is a ranking system derived from the i10 index in order to show the productivity of the
scientist in publishing scientific articles of value. Productivity Rankings is an instrument that lists productive
scientists in a given area, discipline, university, and country and can guide the development of meaningful
incentives and academic policies. The world rankings, regional rankings, and university rankings of scientists in
this table are developed based on the total i10 index. Thus, scientists and universities can obtain their academic
rankings and monitor developments in the ranking over time.
Through the contribution of many scientists from different fields, the “AD Scientific Index” undergoes
systematic updates with the aim of continuous improvement. The index is an independent institution and does
not receive any support from any institutions, organizations, countries, or funds. Concurrently with the
continuous increase in the number of universities and scientists registered to the Index, we are improving
methodology, software, data accuracy, and data cleaning procedures every day through the contributions of a
large team. Your remarks and contributions about our shortcomings will shed light to lead our efforts for
continuous improvement.
AD Scientific Index Ltd.
Methodology
Ranking academic journals according to the impact factor is a practice that started many years ago. The need to access
scientifically valuable studies within limited time frames or the need to find scientists working in a certain field has led to the procedure
of ranking scientists and scientific studies. For this purpose, many scoring systems such as the h-index, i10 index, g-index, m-index,
the Erdös number, tori index, riq index, and read-10 index have been studied as numerical indicators showing how productive and
effective a researcher is. Each of these systems has many advantages as well as disadvantages. Of the abovementioned indexes, the
most accepted one is the h-index. The h-index is determined based on the number of articles cited at least h times. In order to
achieve a high h-index, an academician must have a high number of articles published and have received a high number of citations.
For example, an h-index value of 15 indicates that the academician has received at least 15 citations to each of the 15 articles
published. In order to increase the h-index value from 15 to 16, the same academician should receive at least 16 citations to the
published 16 papers. To find the h-index value, several databases can be used including Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus,
and Publons, some of which are public or require a subscription. In the calculation of h-indexes, such databases use different
parameters including SCI-E or indexed journals or non-indexed auxiliary elements such as other journals, books, or patents. Because
the set of parameters used by each database are different from those used by others, each database may calculate different h-index
values. Therefore, h-indexes calculated by each of the Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and Publons databases may be
different for the same researcher. For example, a researcher, who has authored several books more than scientific papers, may
receive a low h-index score in the Web of Science despite a high number of citations received. Neither of these indexes is equivalent
to the other because of differences in their scopes.
Having a large number of publications indicates that the researcher is productive, but data alone may not be the actual
indicator of the success of the researcher. For example, a researcher may have 10 publications that have received 400 citations. We
can argue that this researcher is more successful than a researcher having more than a hundred published papers that received, let’s
say, 200 citations. Besides, some valuable studies may not have been attributed the actual value they deserved because of various
reasons such as the failure of the use of adequate methods that would enable easy accessibility through scientific channels. The high
number of the use of papers as references by other authors shows the value and extent of contribution to the scientific literature.
The i10-index is another academic scoring system, in which the scores are calculated by Google Scholar. In this scoring system,
only scientific studies such as articles and books that have received 10 or more citations are taken into consideration. The number
of studies that have been cited ten or more times yields the i10-index value. The i10 index and the h-index values calculated for the
last five years do not show that the article was written and published in the last 5 years. Instead, these values show the citation
power in the last 5 years, indicating whether the paper is still effective.
Google Scholar provides both the total values of the i10-index, the h-index, and citation numbers along with the last 5 years’
values through a system based on the voluntariness principle. In this system, scientists create their accounts, select their papers,
and upload the selected papers onto the system. This service does not require a password and is free of charge. Here, we introduce
a newly developed index that we have developed based on the public Google Scholar profiles of scientists. We named this new system
the “AD Scientific Index”, which we have developed through robust intellectual infrastructure and maximum efforts aiming to
contribute to global scientific efforts.
Why is the “AD Scientific Index” needed?
The “AD Scientific Index” is the first and only study that shows the total and the last five-year productivity coefficients of
scientists based on h-index and i10 index scores and citations in Google Scholar. Furthermore, the index provides the ranking and
assessment of scientists in academic subjects and branches and in 13,600 universities, 206 countries, regions, and the world. In
other words, the “AD Scientific Index” provides both the ranking and analysis results.
“AD Scientific Index” (Alper-Doger Scientific Index):
This new index has been developed by Prof. Dr. Murat ALPER (MD) and Associate Prof. Dr. Cihan DÖĞER (MD) by using the
total and last 5 years’ values of the i10 index, h-index, and citation scores in Google Scholar. In addition, the ratio of the last 5 years’
value to the total value of the abovementioned indexes is used. Using a total of nine parameters, the “AD Scientific Index” shows the
ranking of an individual scientist by 12 subjects (Agriculture & Forestry, Arts, Design and Architecture, Business & Management,
Economics & Econometrics, Education, Engineering & Technology, History, Philosophy, Theology, Law / Law and Legal Studies, Medical
and Health Sciences, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Others), 256 branches, 13,600 institutions of employment, 206 countries,
11 regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, Arab Leageu, EECA, BRICS, Latin America, and COMESA),
and in the world. Thus, scientists can obtain their academic rankings and monitor developments in the ranking over time.
Data Collection and Standardization:
Collecting data manually based on the ranking from Google Scholar, the profiles with up to 300 citations and verified addresses
or the profiles that build confidence for their accuracy are listed primarily. Thus, it is aimed to standardize the names, institutions,
and branches as much as possible. Non-standardized data including wide ranges of variations in the information and the use of
abbreviations and a variety of languages have caused difficulties. Performing data mining and scrutinizing the acquired information,
many profiles were excluded from the index. Furthermore, some of the profiles were excluded during the regular examination of the
data onward. Data cleaning requires a regular process in place to be conducted meticulously. We welcome your contributions in data
cleaning and ensuring accuracy.
Determining the subjects/departments, to which scientific fields would belong, may seem easy in some branches and in a
variety of countries. However, it may create considerable confusion in some other countries, regions, and schools. We would like to
emphasize that the following fields including Engineering, Natural and Environmental Sciences, Biology, and Biochemistry, Material
Science, Chemistry, and Social Sciences may exist in quite variable spectrums in different countries. Therefore, we would like to
stress that the standardization of subjects and branches has not been easy. To perform standardizations, we accepted the official
names of the institutions and academic branches as accurate in the way that they were specified on the university website. We have
developed this strategy in order to standardize this complex situation at least partially.
Studies that influence the order of ranking because of a high number of citations received, in a manner similar to
CERN:
We started a procedure to add an asterisk as “*” at the end of the names of the authors when a scientific paper of interest
included many authors such as CERN, ATLAS, ALICE, CMS, Statistical Data, Guideline, Updates etc. scientific papers. We think that
new criteria will be defined to be implemented for such studies. Until further criteria are described, we marked such studies with a
“*” sign.
Profile information and ethical responsibility:
The ethical responsibility for the correct profile information rests entirely with the relevant scientist. However, we think that it
would be prudent for institutions, countries, and even branch associations to conduct periodic reviews of scientist profiles affiliated to
the respective organization since misleading information may compromise the reputation of the organization or the country.
Organizations should also review profiles to identify and report scientists, who are not affiliated with the respective institution. In order
to avoid any compromise to the institutional reputation, institutions should take necessary corrective and preventive actions against
published scientist profiles arranged unethically.
Data Cleaning and the Redlist
Data cleaning is a dynamic process that we systemically perform continuously. Despite all our best efforts, we may not be
completely accurate and we welcome your contributions to the redlist notifications. Rarely, some scientists are included in the redlist
due to innocent mistakes with good intentions and no unethical behavior. Most errors result from inadequate periodic profile checks.
However, the correction of such an error is easy through the submission of a correction request. In order to avoid such an undesirable
situation to occur, scientists should regularly check their profiles and institutions should review the profiles of the staff systematically.
Ranking Criteria:
Ranking of scientists by the university, country, region, and in the world was performed based on the “total h-index”. The
“total h-index” was used in rankings by the branch and the subbranch.
The ranking criteria based on the “total h-index” scores were used in the following order: Firstly, the “total h-index” scores;
secondly, the total number of citations; and thirdly, the “total i10 index” scores (1. Total h-index scores, 2. Total number of citations,
3. Total i10 index scores, 4. Last 5 years’ h-index scores).
Ranking based on the last 5 years’ h-index scores was performed using criteria in the following order: 1. Last 5 years’ h-index
scores, 2. Number of citations in the last 5 years, 3. Last 5 years’ i10 index scores, 4- Total h-index scores.
The ranking criteria for the total i10 index were used in the following order: 1. Total i10 index scores, 2. Total h-index scores,
3. Total number of citations, and 4. Last 5 years’ i10 index scores.
Ranking based on the last 5 years’ i10 index scores was performed using the criteria in the following order: 1. Last 5 years’
i10 index scores, 2. Last 5 years’ h-index scores, 3. Number of citations in the last 5 years and 4. Total i10 index scores.
Ranking based on the total number of citations was performed using the criteria in the following order: 1. Total number of
citations, 2. Total h-index scores, 3. Total i10 index scores and 4. Number of citations in the last 5 years.
Ranking based on the total number of citations in the last 5 years was performed using the criteria in the following order: 1:
Number of citations in the last 5 years, 2. Last 5 years’ h-index scores, 3: Last 5 years’ i10 index scores and 4. Total number of
citations
Why are the last 5 years’ ratios / total ratios important?
The h-index, i10 index, and citation the last 5-year ratios/total ratios are major unique characteristics of the AD Scientific
Index, showing both the development in the individual performance of the scientist and the reflections of the institutional policies of
universities onto the overall scientific picture.
Productivity Rankings
Productivity Rankings is a unique service offered only by “AD Scientific Index”. This is a ranking system derived from the i10
index in order to show the productivity of the scientist in publishing scientific articles of value. Productivity Rankings is an instrument
that lists productive scientists in a given area, discipline, university, and country and can guide the development of meaningful
incentives and academic policies. The world rankings, regional rankings, and university rankings of scientists in this table are
developed based on the total i10 index.
Academic collaboration
Scientific fields of interest specified in the profiles of scientists are available for other scientists from different countries and
institutions to enable academic collaboration.
Ranking Criteria for Top Universities:
In the presence of many different university ranking systems, as the “AD Scientific Index”, we have developed a ranking
system with a different methodology based on the principle of including only meritorious scientists. Based on Google Scholar’s total
h-index scores, we have listed all academicians, who are ranked in the world in the top 10,000 and top 100,000 in university rankings.
Furthermore, we have listed the breakdown of this ranking by main subjects. As the order of ranking principles, we used the overall
top 10,000 scientists list primarily. Secondly and thirdly, we used the ranking in the top 100,000 and top 200.000 scientists list.
Fourthly, the total number of scientists in the AD Scientific Index was ranked by the university. In the case of equalities within a
university ranking, we used the highest rank of the scientist in the respective university as it is listed in the world ranking.
You may sort the ranking from the highest score to the lowest or vice versa in any of these fields. You can observe the fields,
which move the respective university to the forefront. Furthermore, the name of the academician with the highest total h-index in
the respective university is displayed with the world ranking. Top University Ranking by “AD Scientific Index” will not only list the
areas, where a university is the best or has room for improvement, but also reflect the outcomes of scientist policies of the institutions.
This report reveals the competency of institutions to attract prized scientists and the ability of institutions to encourage advances and
retain scientists.
Ranking Criteria for Countries:
As described in the university ranking section, it is not easy to obtain and standardize data from about 13,600 universities for
the country ranking. Therefore, we based our ranking system on the number of meritorious scientists. Four criteria are used to rank
the countries. The first one is the number of scientists in the top 10,000 list. The second and third criterion are the number of
scientists in the top 100,000 and top 200.000 list. The fourth one is the number of scientists listed in the AD Scientific Index. In the
case of equalities after applying all these four criteria, the world rank of the meritorious scientist of that country is used.
World Top 100 Scientists 2021
The ranking of “Top 100” scientists is based on total h-index scores. Top 100 scientists can be ranked globally or specific to
the following regions including Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, Arab League, EECA, BRICS, Latin
America, and COMESA based on total h-index scores without any breakdown by subject areas. Top 100 rankings in the world, in a
continent, or a region include standardized subjects areas of Agriculture & Forestry, Arts, Design and Architecture, Business &
Management, Economics & Econometrics, Education, Engineering & Technology, History, Philosophy, Theology, Law/Law and Legal
Studies, Medical and Health Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences. Subjects indicated as “others” will not be included
in the ranking by regions and subjects. Therefore, you may wish to specify your subject and branch and contribute in order to
standardize your performance. Determining the subjects/departments, to which scientific fields would belong, may seem easy in
some branches and in a variety of countries. However, it may create considerable confusion in some other countries, regions, and
schools. We would like to emphasize that the following fields including Engineering, Natural and Environmental Sciences, Biology,
Biochemistry, Material Science, Biotechnology, Chemistry, and Social Sciences may exist in quite variable spectrums in different
countries. Therefore, we would like to stress that the standardization of subjects and branches has not been easy. To perform
standardizations, we accepted the official names of the institutions and academic branches as accurate in the way that they were
specified on the university website. We have developed this strategy in order to standardize this complex situation at least partially.
Furthermore, we started a procedure to add an asterisk as “*” at the end of the names of the authors when a scientific paper of
interest included many authors such as CERN’s scientific papers.
Limitations of the “AD Scientific Index”: Missing or Inaccurate Profiles or Missing Institution Names
This index is a comparative platform developed by ranking accessible and verified profiles. First and foremost, not being
included in this index for various reasons does not indicate that the academician is not prized or it does not mean that only those
academicians listed in the index are the prized ones. This needs to be carefully noted. A meritorious scientist may not have been
included in this index because of not having a Google Scholar profile or our lack of access to that profile for various reasons. The
unavailability of verified Google Scholar profiles of scientists, who work in well-known and respected academic institutions in
respective countries, may prevent us from finding institutions and scientist profiles. Because updating the profiles in the system and
collection of data from open sources require efforts and because the data have been collected for the first time, it is not possible for
the index to be completely free of errors. Accurate and instant updating of profiles and institution names requires an endless workload
that no institution can overcome only with available resources despite all endeavors.
A high h-index (WOS, Scopus, Publon, etc.) does not mean that a profile will be automatically created for the academician in
Google Scholar. Indeed, Google Scholar profiles are created and made public by scientists themselves on a voluntary basis. An
individual may not have created a profile for various reasons and, therefore, will not be listed in the “AD Scientific Index”.
Furthermore, a profile can be rejected or may not be listed at a particular time. It needs to be considered that, at the time of our
search, a profile may not exist or may not be public, some profiles may be public only at particular times, the information in the
profile may not be standard, there may be more than one profile belonging to the same person, the profiles may not be verified, the
name of the institution can be missing, surnames or institution names can change, profile owners may have died, or known or
unforeseen problems may happen. However, missing information is completed in the system regularly and the list is updated and
corrected continuously. Profiles; whose owners have passed away, are removed from the system.
When we detect or be informed of unethical situations in profile information that go beyond the limits of goodwill, the person
is excluded from the list. You can report problematic and misleading profiles on our “Rejection List” page. As individuals are
responsible for the accuracy of their profiles, organizations, too, should include the need for reviewing academic staff profiles in the
agenda.
Articles with thousands of authors such as CERN studies in the field of physics or scientific studies with more than one author in
classification studies in medicine or statistical studies raise debates about the requirements for the amount of the article content belonging
to one author. Because such papers may cause inequality of opportunity, a separate grouping system may be needed in the future.
Pros and cons of “ranking” systems including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and similar others are well known and the
limits of use of such systems have long been recognized in the scientific community. Therefore, interpreting this study beyond these limits
may lead to incorrect results. The “AD Scientific Index” needs to be evaluated considering all of the abovementioned potential limitations.
Latin America Top 10.000 Scientists AD Scientific Index
RELATED ARTICLES
