https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2021/05/another-nail-in-coffin-of-flawed.html
Still following the post above about a recent paper on the flawed Clarivate highly cited list it's worth remembering that first Clarivate came up with a new area (Cross-Field). Before there were just 21 now they have 22. Not a big change because the minimum should be the 54 areas that are used by the Shanghai ranking. Or better yet to use keywords like the Stanford scientists ranking does.
Secondly, has it was recently mentioned by an Estonian researcher that his country just saw a sudden drop of almost twofold – from 17 to 9 of its highly cited scientists (HCRs) just because last year Clarivate removed the HCRs who had too many papers with more than 30 affiliations. But why 30 affiliations ? Why not 25 or even 20 ?
Moreover that removal does not solve the problem of highly cited authors who still has a high number of papers with hundreds of co-authors from less than 30 affiliations. When will Clarivate Analytics realize that his flawed list of "star" scientists can´t be fixed ?
