Features and signals in precocious citation impact: a meta-research study

ABSTRACT Some scientists reach top citation impact in a very short time once they start publishing. The current analysis defined precocious citation impact as rising to become a top-cited scientist within t≤8 years after the first publication year. Ultra-precocious citation impact was defined similarly for t ≤5 years. Top-cited authors included those in the top-2% of a previously validated composite citation indicator across 174 subfields of science or in the top-100,000 authors of that composite citation indicator across all science based on Scopus. Annual data between 2017 and 2023 show a strong increase over time, with 469 precocious and 66 ultra-precocious citation impact Scopus author IDs in 2023. In-depth assessment of validated ultra-precocious scientists in 2023, showed significantly higher frequency of less developed country affiliation (71%), clustering in 4 high-risk subfields (Environmental Sciences, Energy, Artificial Intelligence & Image Processing, Mechanical Engineering & Transports) (64%), self-citations for their field above the 95 th percentile (31%), being top-cited only when self-citations were included (20%), citations to citing papers ratio for their field above the 95 th percentile (15%), extreme publishing behavior (7%), and extreme citation orchestration metric c/h 2 Significance statement Extreme performance may herald either extreme excellence or extreme inappropriate and outright fraudulent practices. Some authors reach the very top ranks in cumulative citation impact within only a few years, while even accomplished scientists take decades to reach these levels, if ever. A science-wide analysis of the authors with the most impressively precocious citation performance reveals that most of them come from less developed countries with limited resources, they heavily cluster in some scientific subfields, and they often have multiple signal indicators that may suggest problematic behavior. Some of these scientists are unquestionably excellent, while others may be manipulative or fraudulent. Evaluation of extreme cases allows science-wide views of the penetration of massive manipulative practices in scientific publication and citation.