In the race for knowledge, is human capital the most essential element?
Laura Sinay,Rodney William (Bill) Carter,Maria Cristina Fogliatti de Sinay,Rodney William Carter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0521-5
2020-07-08
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Abstract:Abstract Clarivate Analytics, managers of Web of Science, publishes an annual listing of highly cited researchers. The opening sentence of the 2019 report asks “Who would contest that in the race for knowledge, is human capital that is most essential?”. They go on to state that “talent—including intelligence, creativity, ambition, and social competence (where needed)—outpaces other capacities such as access to funding and facilities”. These contradict previous findings, according to which other factors are possibly more influential than human capital. Using Clarivate Analytics’ database for 2018, we investigated which factors are most relevant in development of scientific knowledge. Rather than human capital alone, we found that language, gender, funding, and facilities introduce bias to assessments and possibly prevent talent and discoveries from emerging. We also found that the profile of the highly cited scholars, as established by Clarivate Analytics, is so narrow that it may compromise the validity of scientific knowledge, because it is biased towards the perception and interests of male scholars affiliated with very-highly developed countries where English is commonly spoken and of their sponsors. This highly cited scholars accounted for 76% of the random sample analyzed, absent were women from Latin-America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania, and scholars affiliated with institutions in low-human-developed countries. Also, 98% of the published research came from institutions located in very-highly developed countries. These findings provide evidence that challenges the view that ‘talent is the primary driver of scientific advancement’. This is important because search engines, such as Web of Science, can modify their algorithms to ensure the work of scholars that does not fit the currently dominant profile can have their importance increased so that their findings can more equitably contribute to knowledge development. This, in turn, will increase the validity of scientific inquiry.