Unseen science? Representation of BRICs in global science
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
A survey of scientific periodical publications (or venues-as distinct from articles) from BRIC country practitioners counted more than 15,000 national publications. Data collected from and about Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC countries) show that 495 venues, or about 3%, are listed in the Science Citation Index Expanded© (SCIE©) in 2010. Contrary to our expectation of under-representation overall and coverage limitation of SCIE, the average percentage of SCIE-listed venues for the BRICs is about the same as that for advanced countries. China has the lowest representation of national venues in SCIE at 2% of all publications; Russia has the highest at about 8%. India has about 6% of venues in SCIE; Brazil has about 4%. In other words, SCIE includes about the same percentage of high quality science from these four countries as for North America and Europe, meaning that these countries are not under-represented in SCIE. Moreover, the number of national venues available as outlets suggests that national scientists in these countries have good access to publications and venues. Some of the BRIC national publications are difficult to “see” at the global level because of language barriers, diverse publication formats, and lack of digitization. Other national differences represent historical traditions surrounding publication.
- Arzberger, P., Schroeder, P., Beaulieu, A., Bowker, G., Casey, K., Laaksonen, L., et al. (2004). An international framework to promote access to data. Science, 303(5665), 1777–1778. CrossRef
- Björk, B., Roos, A., & Lauri, M. (2008). Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different open access options. In Proceedings of the ELPUB2008 Conference on Electronic Publishing, Toronto, Canada, June 2008.
- Cetto, A. M., Alonso-Gamboa, J. O., & Gonzalez, S. C. (2010). Ibero-American Systems for the Dissemination of Scholarly Journals: A contribution to public knowledge worldwide. Scholarly and Research Communication, 1(1), 1–16.
- Garg, K. C., Kumar, S., & Dutt, B. (2008). Profile of Indian Science Journals, India: Science and Technology. http://www.nistads.res.in/indiasnt2008/. Accessed May 2011.
- Georghiou, L. (1998). Global cooperation in research. Research Policy, 27(6), 611–626. CrossRef
- Gibbs, W. W. (1995). Lost science in the Third World. Scientific American, 273(2), 76–83.
- Goodman, D., & Deis, L. (2005). Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus. The Charleston Advisor, 6(3).
- Jacsó, P. (2005). As we may search—comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537–1547.
- Jin, B., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005), 中国科技期刊引文网络:国际影响和国内影响分析 (Citation networks of Chinese S&T journals: analysis on international and domestic influence), 中国科技期刊研究 (Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, 16(2) 141–146.
- Jin, B., & Rousseau, R. (2005). Evaluation of research performance and scientometric indicators in China. In: The Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research.
- Jinha, A. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 32(3), 258–263. CrossRef
- Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2009). Is the U.S. losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics, 78(1), 23–36. CrossRef
- Luukonen, T. (1990). Invited review article: Bibliometrics and evaluation of research performance. Annals of medicine, 22(3), 145–150. CrossRef
- Mabe, M. (2003). The growth and number of journals. Serials, 16(2), 191–197.
- Meho, L., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of Data Sources on Citation Counts and Rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2105–2125. CrossRef
- Moller, A. P. (1990). National citations. Nature, 348(6301), 348–480. CrossRef
- National Science Foundation. (2007). Brazil, China, India, Russia, and Taiwan Lead S&E Article Output of the Non-OECD Countries, NSF 07-328, September.
- Price, D. De Solla (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Shrum, W. (1997). View from Afar: ‘Visible’ productivity of scientists in the developing world. Scientometrics, 40(2), 215–235. CrossRef
- Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- UNESCO. (2010). Science Report. Geneva: United Nations.
- Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H., Tijssen, T. J. W., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335–346. CrossRef
- Wagner, C. S. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington: Brookings Press.
- Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organisation, and international cooperation in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618. CrossRef
- Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104. CrossRef
- Unseen science? Representation of BRICs in global science
Volume 90, Issue 3 , pp 1001-1013
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Global science
- Open access
- Developing countries
- National comparisons
- Industry Sectors