  Purpose: Analyze the diversity of citation distributions to publications in
different research topics to investigate the accuracy of size-independent,
rank-based indicators. Top percentile-based indicators are the most common
indicators of this type, and the evaluations of Japan are the most evident
misjudgments. Design/methodology/approach: The distributions of citations to
publications from countries and in journals in several research topics were
analyzed along with the corresponding global publications using histograms with
logarithmic binning, double rank plots, and normal probability plots of
log-transformed numbers of citations. Findings: Size-independent, top
percentile-based indicators are accurate when the global ranks of local
publications fit a power law, but deviations in the least cited papers are
frequent in countries and occur in all journals with high impact factors. In
these cases, a single indicator is misleading. Comparisons of proportions of
uncited papers are the best way to predict these deviations. Research
limitations: The study is fundamentally analytical; its results describe
mathematical facts that are self-evident. Practical implications: Respectable
institutions, such as the OECD, European Commission, US National Science Board,
and others, produce research country rankings and individual evaluations using
size-independent percentile indicators that are misleading in many countries.
These misleading evaluations should be discontinued because they cause
confusion among research policymakers and lead to incorrect research policies.
Originality/value: Studies linking the lower tail of citation distribution,
including uncited papers, to percentile research indicators have not been
performed previously. The present results demonstrate that studies of this type
are necessary to find reliable procedures for research assessments.
