Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From BRICS to BRICS plus: selecting promising areas of S&T Cooperation with developing countries

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

BRICS as an association of five major emerging national economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) has been expanding its international cooperation, in particular with developing countries. This process sometimes is referred as building of a BRICS Plus association. Science and technology, being a key driver of economic growth, is one of the most important area of socioeconomic development. It becomes increasingly complicated, requires expensive research infrastructure, skilled workforce, and high-tech laboratory equipment, therefore no one individual country in the world can afford a full-scale support to all areas of research and development. That is why collaboration in this area is considered a very promising activity. Following the BRICS Plus concept proposed by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in 2017, this paper presents one of the first attempts to identify key priorities to be addressed by BRICS in establishing and enhancing S&T cooperation with a number of major developing countries, primarily from Global South. Based on a set of criteria for country selection (population, economic potential, R&D sector capacities; research output; etc.), 21 countries are considered in this paper as a BRICS Plus group. A detailed analysis of publication activities of BRICS Plus countries and their international scientific collaboration based on a wide range of bibliometric indicators was applied for the identification of promising thematic areas for research collaboration between BRICS and BRICS Plus countries. A special analysis is presented for 14 science, technology, and innovation areas, which are regarded as common priorities for BRICS countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Source: Calculated by authors using OECD MSTI (Main Science and technology Indicators database); UNESCO Institute of Statistic database (section “Science, technology and innovation”); World Bank Indicators database; SCImago Journal and country Rank (based on Scopus)–https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php. Last update: August 2019

Fig. 3

Source: derived from Sokolov et al. (2019)

Fig. 4

Source: Derived from (Sokolov et al., 2017a, b) and extended to the least available years. Authors’ calculations from OECD MSTI (Main Science and technology Indicators database); UNESCO Institute of Statistic database (section “Science, technology and innovation”). Last update: August 2019.

Fig. 5

Source: Derived from (Shashnov & Kotsemir, 2018) with the addition of BRICS Plus countries and extension of data to the last available years. Authors’ calculations from OECD MSTI (Main Science and technology Indicators database); UNESCO Institute of Statistic database (section “Science, technology and innovation”). Last update: September 2019

Fig. 6

Source: Derived from Shashnov and Kotsemir (2018) and updated to 2018. Authors’ calculations based on data from Scopus SciVal database. Types of publications include articles, reviews, and conference papers. Last update: August 2019

Fig. 7

Source: Authors’ calculations from data taken from Scopus database. Types of publications include articles, reviews, and conference papers. Last update: September 2019

Fig. 8

Source: Authors’ calculations are from data taken from the Scopus database. Types of publications include articles, reviews, and conference papers. Last update: September 2019

Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Source: Authors’ calculations are made using data taken from the Scopus database. Types of publications include articles, reviews, and conference papers. Last update: September 2019

Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Source: Authors’ calculations are based on data taken from the Scopus database. Types of publications include articles, reviews, and conference papers. Last update: September 2019

Fig. 14

Source: Authors’ calculations are based on data taken from the Scopus database. Types of publications include articles, reviews, and conference papers. Last update: September 2019

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See for example https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/brics-plus-an-alternative-to-globalization-in-the-making/ or http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-07/28/c_137352893.htm).

  2. For details see: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-03/08/c_136112470.htm.

  3. For details see: http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/en/press-releases/17427-9th-brics-summit-brics-leaders-xiamen-declaration-xiamen-china-september-4-2017.

  4. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-07/28/c_137352893.htm.

  5. Free access to this database is available on http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid=115.

  6. OECD MSTI database is available here: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MSTI_PUB.

  7. https://www.scopus.com/home.uri.

  8. All serial sources (i.e., journals, book series, and conference series) in Scopus were classified on 313 specific subject categories (“SC”) that are integrated into 27 major subject areas (“SA”) according to Scopus® Classification and All Science Journal Classification Codes (ASJC). See more in https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15181/kw/subject%20categories%20and%20subject%20areas/supporthub/scopus/related/1/.

  9. Terms “revealed comparative advantage” or “Relative Comparative Advantage” was used in e.g. Debackere et al., 1999; Chuang et al., 2010; Kahn, 2011; Tang and Shapira, 2011; Lee et al., 2012; Harzing and Giroud, 2014; Radosevic and Yoruk, 2014; Kutlača, 2016; Wang, 2016. Terms “Index of scientific specialis(-z)ation”/ “Scientific specialis(-z)ation index” were used in e.g.: Mertins, 2003; Kotsemir, 2012; Mangematinæ and Errabi, 2012; Abramo et al., 2014; Acosta et al., 2014; Ionescu, 2015; Kotsemir et al., 2015; Bianchini and Llerena, 2016; Daraio, and Bonaccorsi, 2017. Finally, terms “relative specialis(-z)ation index” or “index of relative specialis(-z)ation” were used in e.g.: Barre, 1987; Debackere and Luwel, 2004; Aksnes et al., 2014; Confraria and Vargas, 2017; Gautam, 2017.

  10. In China, starting from 2009, data on researchers are collected according to the Frascati Manual definition of researcher. Before that, this was only the case for independent research institutions, while for the other sectors’ data were collected according to the UNESCO concept of "scientist and engineer" (see for more details OECD MSTI methodological comments: https://ststs.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=MSTI_PUB&Lang=en&Coords=[COU].[CHN]).

  11. In the Russian Federation, headcount data include full-time personnel only, and hence are underestimated, while data in FTE are calculated on the basis of both full-time and part-time personnel. This explains why the FTE data are greater than the headcount data. See for more details OECD MSTI methodological comments: https://stats.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=MSTI_PUB&Lang=en&Coords=[COU].[RUS]).

  12. All calculations are based on the Scopus data. Types of publications include articles, reviews, and conference papers.

  13. In all calculations, data are given for Mainland China, not taking into account data for Macao and Hong Kong (Macao and Hong Kong stay in Scopus as separate countries).

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2014). A new bibliometric approach to assess the scientific specialization of regions. Research Evaluation, 23(2), 183–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Ferrándiz, E., & León, M. D. (2014). Regional scientific production and specialization in Europe: The role of HERD. European Planning Studies, 22(5), 949–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., Pendlebury, D., & Stembridge, B. (2013). ‘Building bricks: Exploring the global research and innovation impact of Brazil, Russia, India. Thomson Reuters: China and South Korea’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. W., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Sivertsen, G. (2014). The effect of booming countries on changes in the relative specialization index (RSI) on country level. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1391–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldieri, L., Gennaro, G., Kotsemir, M. N., & Vinci, C. P. (2019). An Investigation of Impact of Research Collaboration on Academic Performance in Italy // Quality and Quantity., 2019, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arapova, E. (2019a). “Integration of Integrations” and prospects of BRICS+. Mirovaya Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 63(4), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arapova, E. Y. (2019b). The “BRICS Plus” as the first international platform connecting regional trade agreements. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 19(2), 30–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, É., Beauchesne, O. H., Côté, G., & Roberge, G. (2011, July). Scale-adjusted metrics of scientific collaboration. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (ISSI) (pp. 78–88).

  • Bagchi, N. (2011). A comparative analysis of the factors for fostering innovation in BRICS countries from 1995 to 2009. ASCI Journal of Management, 41, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balassa, B. (1965). Trade liberalisation and “revealed” comparative advantage. The Manchester School, 33(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barre, R. (1987). A strategic assessment of the scientific performance of five countries. Science and Technology Studies, 32–38.

  • BRICS Science, Technology and Innovation Ministerial Meeting (2015a) Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Science, Technology and Innovation between the Governments of The Federative Republic of Brazil, The Russia Federation, The republic of India. The People’s Republic of China and The Republic of South Africa/ Brasilia. 18 March 2015.

  • BRICS Science, Technology and Innovation Work Plan 2015–2018 (2015b).

  • Bianchini, S., & Llerena, P. (2016). Science policy as a prerequisite of industrial policy. Economia e Politica Industriale, 43(3), 273–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BILAT-USA (2010) Analysis of S&T Priorities in Public Research in Europe and the USA.

  • Bornmann, L., Wagner, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). BRICS countries and scientific excellence: A bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology., 66, 1507–1513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouabid, H., Paul-Hus, A., & Larivière, V. (2016). Scientific collaboration and high-technology exchanges among BRICS and G-7 countries. Scientometrics, 106, 873–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cagnin, C. (2014). STI Foresight in Brazil. Foresight-Russia, 8(2), 46–55. in Russian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, L., & Daim, T. (2012). Exploring the impact of technology Foresight studies on innovation: Case of BRIC countries. Futures, 44(6), 618–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang, Y. W., Lee, L. C., Hung, W. C., & Lin, P. H. (2010). Forging into the innovation lead — A comparative analysis of scientific capacity. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(03), 511–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Confraria, H., & Vargas, F. (2017). Scientific systems in Latin America: performance, networks, and collaborations with industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–42 (article in press).

  • Daraio, C., & Bonaccorsi, A. (2017). Beyond university rankings? Generating new indicators on universities by linking data in open platforms. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(2), 508–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • das Leta, J., Neves Machado, R., & Canchumani, R. M. (2019). Scientific Collaboration Among BRICS: Trends and Priority Areas. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 485–504). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Luwel, M. (2004). Patent data for monitoring S&T portfolios. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (pp. 569–585). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., Luwel, M., & Veugelers, R. (1999). Can technology lead to a competitive advantage? A case study of Flanders using European patent data. Scientometrics, 44(3), 379–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edler, J. (2010). Coordinate to collaborate: the governance challenges for European international S&T policy. International Science and Technology Cooperation in a Globalized World (pp. 135–160). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham: The External Dimension of the European Research Area.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edler, J. (2010b). International policy coordination for collaboration in S&T. Manchester Business School working papers, paper No. 590.

  • Elango, B., Rajendran, P., & Manickraj, P. (2013). Tribology Research Output in BRIC Countries: A Scientometric Dimension. Library Philosophy & Practice, May 2013, 1–11.

  • Erokhin, V., & Tianming, G. (2020). China and the Eurasian Economic Union: A Future of Agricultural Trade in BRICS+ Format. Regional Trade and Development Strategies in the Era of Globalization (pp. 68–92). IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • European Forum on Forward Looking Activities (2015) How to design a European foresight process that contributes to a European challenge driven R&I strategy process, European Forum on Forward Looking Activities, Policy Brief N° 2.

  • Figueroa, A., & Stamm, A. (2012). Effective international science, technology and innovation collaboration: from lessons learned to policy change (pp. 207–242). In Meeting Global Challenges through Better Governance, OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finardi, U. (2015). Scientific collaboration between BRICS countries. Scientometrics, 102, 1139–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finardi, U., & Buratti, A. (2016). Scientific collaboration framework of BRICS countries: An analysis of international coauthorship. Scientometrics, 109, 433–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • First BRICS Science, Technology and Innovation Ministerial Meeting (2014) Cape Town Declaration. 10 Febr 2014.

  • Gabriel, J., & Schmelcher, S. (2018). Three scenarios for EU-China relations 2025. Futures, 97, 26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg, K. C., & Padhi, P. (2001). A study of collaboration in laser science and technology. Scientometrics, 51(2), 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassler H., Polt W., Schindler J., Weber M., Mahroum S., Kubeczko K., Keenan M. (2004). Priorities in Science & Technology Policy — An International Comparison. Project report commissioned by the Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development.

  • Gautam, P. (2017). An overview of the Web of Science record of scientific publications (2004–2013) from Nepal: focus on disciplinary diversity and international collaboration. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1245–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georghiou, L. (2001). Evolving frameworks for European collaboration in research and technology. Research Policy, 30(6), 891–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort=double impact? A critical view at international coauthorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L., Meissner, D., & Sokolov, A. (2016). Deploying Foresight for Policy and Strategy Makers: Creating Opportunities through Public Policies and Corporate Strategies in Science, Technology and Innovation. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grebenyuk A., Pikalova A., Sokolov A., Shashnov S., Kaivo-oja J. (2016). Priority Setting in the EU Countries and the Russian Federation: The Best Practices, M, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

  • Guevara, M. R., and Mendoza, M. (2016) ‘Publishing patterns in BRIC countries: A network analysis’, Publications, 4: Paper No. 20.

  • Haegeman, K., Spiesberger, M., Veselitskaya, N., Sokolov, A., & Weiss, G. (2015). FTA supporting effective priority setting in multi-lateral research programme cooperation: The case of EU–Russia S&T cooperation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 200–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W., & Giroud, A. (2014). The competitive advantage of nations: An application to academia. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ionescu, C. (2015). Challenges on the integration of romanian system research, development and innovation in innovation union. Procedia Economics and Finance, 32, 986–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, M. (2011). A bibliometric analysis of South Africa’s scientific outputs: Some trends and implications. South African Journal of Science, 107(1–2), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, M. (2015). Prospects for cooperation in science, technology and innovation among the BRICS members. International Organisations Research Journal, 10, 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, M. (2018). Co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration: A cautionary tale. Science and Public Policy, 45, 117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. J., Lee, H.K., Youn, S., and Oh D. H. (2012) Measuring the quality of research papers in G7 and BRICs countries using R2nIF indicator, in Proceedings of STI 2012: International conference on science and technology indicators 2012, pp. 875–6.

  • Kotsemir, M. (2012). Dynamics of Russian and world science through the prism of international publications. Foresight-Russia, 6(1), 38–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotsemir, M., Kuznetsova, T., Nasybulina, E., & Pikalova, A. (2015). Identifying directions for the Russia’s science and technology cooperation. Foresight and STI Governance, 9(4), 54–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., & Asheulova, N. (2011). Comparative analysis of scientific output of BRIC countries. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 58, 228–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutlača, D. (2016). Scientific research publication productivity in the areas of mathematics and physics in South Eastern Europe. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 24(3).

  • Kuwahara, T., K. Cuhls and L. Georghiou (2008). Foresight in Japan. The Handbook of Technology Foresight Concepts and Practice. Pp. 170–183.

  • Lee, L. C., Lee, Y. Y., & Liaw, Y. C. (2012). Bibliometric analysis for development of research strategies in agricultural technology: The case of Taiwan. Scientometrics, 93(3), 813–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L. (2009). Research Priorities and Priority-setting in China. Vinnova Analysis. Vinnova. Retrieved from: https://www.vinnova.se/en/publikationer/research-priorities-and-priority-setting-in-china/

  • Li, J. (2020). Status and Prospects of International Cooperation within the Framework of BRICS+. Administrative Consulting, 3, 110–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N., Chen, K., & Kou, M. (2017). Technology Foresight in China: Academic studies, governmental practices and policy applications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 246–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissovolik, Y. (2017a). BRICS-plus: Alternative globalization in the making? Valdai Papers. Paper No. 69. Retrieved from http://valdaiclub.com/files/14927/

  • Lissovolik, Y., & Vinokurov, E. (2019). Extending BRICS to BRICS+: The potential for development finance, connectivity and financial stability. Area Development and Policy, 4(2), 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangematinæ, V., & Errabi, K. (2012). The determinants of the science-based cluster growth: The case of nanotechnologies. Environment and Planning c: Government and Policy, 30(1), 128–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauleon, E., and De Filippo, D. (2013) ‘Are the BRIC and MITS countries improving their presence in the international science’, In 14th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2013-Proceedings, Vol. 2, pp. 1868–70.

  • Meissner, D., Gokhberg, L., & Sokolov, A. (Eds.). (2013). Science, Technology and Innovation Policy for the Future. Potentials and Limits of Foresight Studies. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertins, K. (2003). Innovation in Indonesia. Fraunhoffer Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, N. P., & Nascimento, P. A. (2013). Some trends in higher education and research in BRICS countries. In A. Bawa, N. Bohler-Muller, S. Fikeni, S. Zondi, & S. Naidu (Eds.), Fifth BRICS Academic Forum (pp. 117–133). Pretoria: Department of International Relations and Cooperation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mojica, F. J. (2010). The future of the future: Strategic Foresight in Latin America. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(9), 1559–1565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2010). Priority Setting for Public Research: Challenges and Opportunities. OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012). Meeting Global Challenges through Better Governance. Paris: International Co-operation in Science Technology and Innovation, OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Penalva, J. L. B. (2008). Country Report Brazil: An Analysis of EU-Brazilian Cooperation in S&T. CREST OMC Working Group, Brussels. Retrieved from http://www.access4.eu/_media/Crest_Brazil-EU_report.pdf

  • Pouris, A., & Raphasha, P. (2015). Priorities setting with foresight in South Africa. Foresight and STI Governance, 9(3), 66–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poznyak, A., & Shashnov, S. (2011). S&T priorities for modernization of the Russian economy. Foresight-Russia, 5(2), 48–56. in Russian.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radosevic, S., & Yoruk, E. (2014). Are there global shifts in the world science base? Analysing the catching up and falling behind of world regions. Scientometrics, 101(3), 1897–1924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensburg, I., Motala, S., & David, S. A. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for research collaboration among the BRICS nations. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45, 814–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensburg, I., Motala, S., & David, S. A. (2016). Research collaboration among emerging economies: Policy and economic implications for BRICS nations. International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies, 9, 344–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (2006). Cross-national preference in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics, 69(2), 409–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuch, K., Bonas, G., & Sonnenburg, J. (2012). Enhancing science and technology cooperation between the EU and Eastern Europe as well as Central Asia: A critical reflection on the White Paper from a S&T policy perspective. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serger, S. S. and Wise, E. (2010). Internationalization of Research and Innovation: New policy developments. In 2nd Conference on Corporate R&D (CONCORD), 3 – 4 March 2010, JRC European Commission, Seville.

  • Shashnov, S., and Kotsemir, M. (2019). Identifying research areas for intensification of intraBRICS collaboration. In 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2019-Proceedings, Vol. II, pp. 2730–2731.

  • Shashnov, S., & Kotsemir, M. (2018). Research landscape of the BRICS countries: Current trends in research output, thematic structures of publications, and the relative influence of partners. Scientometrics, 117, 1115–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shashnov, S., & Poznyak, A. (2011). Nauchno-tekhnologicheskie prioritety dlya modernizatsii rossiyskoy ekonomiki (S&T Priorities for Modernization of Russian Economy). Foresight-Russia, 5(2), 48–56. in Russian.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shashnov, S., & Sokolova, A. (2013). S&T&I priorities for the Russian natural resources sector. Foresight, 15(1), 40–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokolov, A., Shashnov, S., Kotsemir, M., & Grebenyuk, A. (2018). S&T priorities for BRICS countries: in search of a win-win strategy. In BRICS Innovative Competitiveness Report 2017 (pp. 31–65). Singapore: Springer.

  • Sokolov, A., Shashnov, S., Kotsemir, M., & Grebenyuk, A. (2019). Quantitative analysis for a better-focused international STI collaboration policy: A case of BRICS // Technological Forecasting and Social Change., 147, 221–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokolov, A., & Chulok, A. (2016). Priorities for future innovation: Russian S&T Foresight 2030. Futures, 80, 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokolov, A., Shashnov, S., Kotsemir, M., & Grebenyuk, A. (2017a). Identification of priorities for S&T cooperation of BRICS countries. International Organisations Research Journal, 12(4), 32–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2011). Regional development and interregional collaboration in the growth of nanotechnology research in China. Scientometrics, 86(2), 299–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tõnurist, P., & Kattel, R. (2016). Can research, development, and innovation policies cross borders? The case of nordic-baltic region. Science and Public Policy, 44(3), 328–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varum, C. A., & Piscitello, L. (2011). The role of public policy in strengthening innovation through internationalization. Science And Innovation Policy For The New Knowledge Economy (pp. 162–182). Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., & Wong, S. K. (2012). Unseen science? Representation of BRICs in Global Science. Scientometrics, 90, 1001–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L. (2016). The structure and comparative advantages of China’s scientific research: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Scientometrics, 106(1), 435–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, C. Y., & Wang, L. (2015). Trajectories of science and technology and their co-evolution in BRICS: Insights from publication and patent analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 90–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Wang, T., Jiang, H., & Ouyang, Z. (2020). Location Choice of Overseas Investments in Transportation Infrastructure by Chinese Enterprises: From the Perspective of the “BRICS+” Mode. Recent Trends in Decision Science and Management (pp. 599–612). Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L. Y., Yue, T., Ding, J. L., & Han, T. (2012). A comparison of disciplinary structure in science between the G7 and the BRIC countries by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 93, 497–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, Y., Qi, W., & Wu, D. (2013). Are CIVETS the next BRICs? A comparative analysis from scientometrics perspective. Scientometrics, 94, 615–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue, T., Yang, L., Ahlgren, P., Ding, J., Shi, S., & Frietsch, R. (2018). A comparison of citation disciplinary structure in science between the G7 countries and the BRICS countries. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3, 14–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The article was prepared in the framework of a research grant funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (grant ID: 075-15-2020-928).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University), Myasnitskaya street 11, Moscow, Russian Federation

    Alexander Sokolov, Sergey Shashnov & Maxim Kotsemir

Authors
  1. Alexander Sokolov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sergey Shashnov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maxim Kotsemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maxim Kotsemir.

Appendix

Appendix

Annex note AN. 1. Abbreviations of Countries and Thematic Areas Used in the Current Paper

Throughout the whole paper we use abbreviations of countries, Scopus subject areas, and priority areas as follows.

BRICS and BRICS Plus countries are abbreviated as follows: BRA: Brazil; RUS: Russian Federation; IND: India; CHI: China; SAR: South Africa; ALG: Algeria; ARG: Argentina; BAN: Bangladesh; CHL: Chile; COL: Colombia; EGY: Egypt; ETH: Ethiopia; IDN: Indonesia; IRN: Iran; KEN: Kenya; MAL: Malaysia; MEX: Mexico; MRC: Morocco; NIG: Nigeria; PAK: Pakistan; SAU: Saudi Arabia; THA: Thailand; TUN: Tunisia; TUR: Turkey; UAE: United Arab Emirates; VTN: Vietnam.

The 27 Scopus subject areas are abbreviated as follows: AGRI–Agricultural and Biological Sciences; ARTS–Arts and Humanities; BIOC–Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; BUSI–Business, Management and Accounting; CENG–Chemical Engineering; CHEM–Chemistry; COMP–Computer Science; DECI–Decision Sciences; DENT–Dentistry; EART–Earth and Planetary Sciences; ECON–Economics, Econometrics and Finance; ENER–Energy; ENGI–Engineering; ENVI–Environmental Science; HEAL–Health Professions; IMMU–Immunology and Microbiology; MATE–Materials Science; MATH–Mathematics; MEDI–Medicine; MULT–Multidisciplinary; NEUR–Neuroscience; NURS–Nursing; PHAR–Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; PHYS–Physics and Astronomy; PSYC–Psychology; SOCI–Social Sciences; VETE–Veterinary.

Priority areas are abbreviated as follows ICT–Information and communication technologies; Nano&Mat–Nanotechnology and new materials; AdvManuf–Advanced manufacturing and robotics; Space–Space systems and astronomical observations; Transp–Transport systems; EnEff–Energy efficiency and energy saving; NuclEn–Nuclear energy; RenewEn–Renewable energy resources; Mining–Search, exploration, development and mining of minerals; Clim&Envi–Climate change, environmental protection and disaster management; WaterRes–Water resources; FoodSec–Food security and sustainable agriculture; Heal&Med–Healthcare and medicine; Biotech–Biotechnology. See Figs. 15 and 16 and Table 8.

Fig. 15
figure 15

Source: Derived from Shashnov and Kotsemir (2018) and updated to 2017. Authors’ calculations are based on data taken from the Scopus database. Types of publications include articles, reviews, and conference papers. Last update: August 2019

Growth of the number of publications in scopus (thousand) in 2000–2018 in BRICS countries, USA, and EU-28 countries.

Full size image
Fig. 16
figure 16

Source: Authors’ calculations are from data taken from the Scopus database. Types of publications include articles, reviews, and conference papers. Last update: September 2019

Growth of publications of BRIC and BRICS plus countries in priority areas for 2018–2010, times. Note Abbreviations for priority areas and for BRICS and BRICS Plus countries are presented in Annex note AN.1 in Annex.

Full size image
Table 8 Conversion table from scopus subject areas and subject categories to 14 priority areas
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sokolov, A., Shashnov, S. & Kotsemir, M. From BRICS to BRICS plus: selecting promising areas of S&T Cooperation with developing countries. Scientometrics 126, 8815–8859 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04142-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04142-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation