IISc leads Indian institutions in Stanford–Elsevier’s 2026 scientist database

The Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, has the highest number of researchers among Indian institutions featured in the 2026 Stanford–Elsevier World’s Top 2% Scientists career-long impact list.

IISc has 139 researchers in the database, followed by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi with 114 and IIT Kharagpur with 97. IIT Madras has 81 researchers, while IIT Bombay has 73.

The 2026 career-long list includes 3,898 researchers affiliated with 1,185 Indian institutions. The database is prepared by researchers associated with Stanford University and published by Elsevier.

IITs and public research institutions feature prominently

After the top five institutions, IIT Roorkee has 62 researchers and IIT Kanpur has 55. Jadavpur University has 48, followed by Banaras Hindu University with 44 and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre with 40.

The University of Delhi has 38 researchers in the list, while IIT Guwahati has 37. The figures cover researchers associated with the respective institutions; they are not a direct measure of an institution’s total research output.

The database also includes researchers from other universities, specialist research centres and private institutions. Its institutional counts offer a snapshot of researchers represented in the citation-based dataset rather than a comprehensive ranking of universities.

How the database assesses research impact

The Stanford–Elsevier database uses citation information from Scopus and a composite citation score, known as the c-score. Its indicators include citation counts, the h-index, co-authorship and authorship position. The methodology also considers scores calculated with and without self-citations.

Researchers are grouped into 22 broad scientific fields and 174 subfields, reflecting differences in publication and citation practices across disciplines. The database uses two separate datasets to assess career-long citation impact and performance over a single year.

The career-long list measures citation impact accumulated over a researcher’s career. The single-year list, by contrast, focuses on research impact during a specific period. The two datasets therefore should not be treated as interchangeable rankings.

Citation counts do not measure every aspect of research

A researcher’s inclusion in the database indicates performance against its citation-based criteria. However, citation indicators alone cannot establish the quality, originality or practical value of every research contribution, nor do they measure teaching or mentoring.

The institutional figures should therefore be read within the scope of the database’s methodology rather than as a definitive ranking of overall academic performance.