EUGENIO VIASSA MONTEIRO
Stanford University, in col-laboration with Elsevier, released its annual list of the world’s top 2% scientists, highlighting the most influen-tial researchers across various scientific fields. Two hundred thirty thousand scientists were scrutinised and ranked across 22 broad fields and 174 subfields. They are ranked according to a composite citation score that accounts for adjustments for au-thorship and co-authorship, en-suring a fairer evaluation of their influence.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
What interest does it have for those who are part of this elite 2%, besides a certain self-es-teem? They are considered the most influential, as their re search has been cited in various works, suggesting that the topics under scrutiny will have a signif icant impact in the near future. For them, it may reinforce what they already know: that investing effort is worthwhile, as the topics seem to be gaining relevance.
Therefore, the research effort and the subsequent writing and publishing of the conclusions will have their benefits. Not so much to quote, but above all, because the research highlights the essential content that will become significant in the future.
“Bibliometric data are quan-titative measurements derived from analysing large collections of scholarly publications, such as articles, books, and conference proceedings, to identify research patterns, trends, and impacts. This data uses mathematical and statistical methods to evaluate author productivity, journal in-fluence (eg, using the h-index, which is a combined measure of an author’s publications and ci-tations), collaboration networks, research gaps, and the overall scientific performance of a field” (Google).
Those top 2% can more easi-ly connect with and learn about each other’s work on related topics. So they can plan joint re-search or exchange their knowl- edge and perspectives. “It’s always very stimulating to feel supported in the development of one’s research. Ideas from one person can provide research in-sights for another, and vice ver-sa
Knowledge of the people in-cluded in the 2% may be help-ful in potentially hiring them to guide a sector of activity where an institution wants to enter and/or develop its R&D. When starting a Department or Re-search Centre, there’s nothing better than connecting with those who have already demon-strated their abilities, putting in charge to integrate and mentor others who are taking their first steps in the field.
Although classifications like this have their limitations, there is no doubt that they are better than nothing and can be refined/improved year after year. They provide insight into the sectors targeted for study and highlight the potential interest in future applications, such as in health-care or general industrial sectors. They can identify trends in the collected data and alert others.
What about Indian scientists?
It’s an objective and helpful. fact: In 2025, there were 6,239 Indian scientists among the 230,000, compared to 5,352 in 2024. It seems that we are mak ing progress, and to foster it, we need to find ways to boost R&D in private and public institutions and companies, focusing them on results to enhance their effec-tiveness.
Which Indian research insti-tutions are more represented in Stanford and Elsevier’s 2% selec-tion of Scientists? These are:
The Indian Institute of Sci-ence (MSc), Bengaluru, sits at the top of Indian institutions, followed by the major IITs-In-dian Institutes of Technology The leading counts (career-long dataset) include IISc:133, IIT Delhi:105, IIT Kharagpur: 91, IIT Madras: 75. IIT Bombay:70, IIT
Roorkee: 56, and IIT Kanpur:49. Other notable contributors are:
-Jadavpur University: 40. Ja davpur University is a public technical university located in Jadavpur, Kolkata, West Bengal. It was founded in 1905 as Bengal Technical Institute. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre: 39. This is India’s pre-mier nuclear research facility, established by Dr Homi Bhabha in 1954 as the Atomic Energy Es-tablishment, Trombay.
– Banaras Hindu University: 38 and
– University of Delhi: 38.
-Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS) has reached a historic milestone, with 111 of its faculty members ranked among the world’s top 2% scientists. This prestigious recognition features 14 faculty from Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, 39 from SIMATS, 6 from Saveetha Medical Col-lege and Hospital, and 52 from Saveetha School of Engineering With this achievement, SIMATS now ranks second nationally, next to IISc Bangalore.
-Panjab University records 48 faculty on the list this year apparent local success. an
Some observations come to my mind, referring to these re-sults:
1. Saveetha University, estab-lished only 20 years ago, has a magnificent scientific record. It seems that in all institutions, the person at the top, in this case, the Founder, is the driving force behind their performance. Among the 111 scientists, 14 are from the Dental College, clearly influenced by its Director and Founder: Although it may seem minor to have 14 scientists af-filiated with the Dental College, any effort that alleviates human suffering and leads to a rapid cure is always timely and greatly appreciated.
2. IISc-Indian Institute of Sciences, or the prior Tata In-stitute of Sciences, also boasts a high number of renowned sci-entists. The Founder of the Tata Group, Jamsetji N. Tata, would be very pleased with the outcomes of one of his commitments to the country: elevating scientific knowledge.
The IITs have a strong pres-ence. It is an excellent incentive for all twenty operating IITs to follow the example of those do-ing well and find their “place in the sun” through high-quality, published, and cited research. Better still is such research, lead-ing them to a considerable num ber of patent registrations
All universities can see that the time has come to rethink the research they conduct. Such research often advances when it has a top leader with the ide-as and dynamism to drive the Institution to deliver results and secure the resources to acquire technologies and properly re-munerate its dedicated scien tists. There is always an indirect benefit for such universities or research centres, stemming from the reputation of the scientific work they conduct, which socie
ty values. The list covers 22 broad fields and 174 subfields, so entries range from chemistry and phys-ics to medical and engineering specialities. Several household names for Indian science appear on the list. Large research hubs dominate the numbers, but several small-er or unusual institutes such as regional colleges, single-lab units, and specialised research centres also have one or two researchers identified. That mix matters: influence can come from unexpected places.
Many small scientific institu-tions received mention among the 2%. It is an excellent incen-tive for the Directors of each. Research Centre to seriously dedicate themselves to promot-ing their research teams’ work and publications, thereby ena-bling them to secure the financial means to go further.
It would be interesting to establish a system to channel official research funding to the most effective institutions. And. discover other sources, particu-larly those that companies must dedicate to CSR (Corporate So-cial Responsibility), now partly oriented toward R&D.
(The Author is Professor at AESE-Business School (Lisbon), at L..M. Rohtak (India), author of The Rise of India)
