Scientometrics

, Volume 77, Issue 3, pp 389–414 | Cite as

Intellectual structure of Antarctic science: A 25-years analysis

Article

Abstract

To delineate the intellectual structure of Antarctic science, the research outputs on Antarctic science have been analyzed for a period of 25 years (1980–2004) through a set of scientometrics and network analysis techniques. The study is based on 10,942 records (research articles, letters, reviews, etc.), published in 961 journals/documents, and retrieved from the Science Citation Index (SCI) database. Over the years interest in Antarctic science has increased, as is evident from the growing number of ratified countries and research stations. During the period under study, the productivity has increased 3-times and there is a 13-fold increase in collaborative articles. Attempt has been made to identify important players like scientists, organizations and countries working in the field and to identify frontier areas of research that is being conducted in this continent. The highest 41% scientific output is contributed by the USA and the UK, followed by Australia and Germany. British Antarctic Survey (BAS), UK and Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar & Marine Research, Germany are the most productive institutes in Antarctic science. Maximum number of research articles on Antarctic science, have been published in the journal Polar Biology, indicating substantial work being done on the biology of this continent. The journals — Nature and Science — are the highly-cited journals in Antarctic science. The paper written by J. C. Farman et al., published in Nature in 1985, reporting depletion of ozone layer, is the most-cited article. Semantic relationships between cited documents were measured through co-citation analysis. J. C. Farman and S. Solomon are co-cited most frequently.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anonymous (2002), Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) (2002), July: U S Department of State, Washington DC, July.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (2006), Journal Selection Process, retrieved on 19 July, 2006 from: http://scientific.thomson.com
  3. Antarctic Treaty Secretariat (2006), accessed on June 23, 2006 from: http://www.ats.aq/uploaded/SIGNEDINWASHINGTON.pdf
  4. Antarctic Treaty Secretariat (2004), Final Report of the Twenty-Seventh Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM), 14 May–4 June, Cape Town.Google Scholar
  5. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., Freeman, L. C. (2002), UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  6. CIA (2006), World Fact Book, retrieved on 18th July, 2006 from: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook
  7. Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) (2005), COMNAP report to Antarctica Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) XXVIII.Google Scholar
  8. Dastidar, P. G., Persson, O. (2005), Mapping the global structure of Antarctic research vis-à-vis Antarctic Treaty System. Current Science 89(2): 11552–11554.Google Scholar
  9. Dastidar, P. G. (2004), Ocean Science & Technology research across the countries: A global scenario. Scientometrics, 59(1): 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dastidar, P. G., Ramachandran, S. (2005), Engineering research in ocean sector: An international profile. Scientometrics, 65(2): 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dastidar, P. G. (2007), National and institutional productivity and collaboration in Antarctic science: an analysis of 25 years of journal publications (1980–2004), Polar Research (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  12. Egghe, L., Rousseu, R. (2002), Co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and a characterization of lattice citation network. Scientometrics 55(3): 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeman, L. C. (1979), Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks. 1: 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garfield, E. (1990), How ISI selects journals for coverage: quantitative and qualitative Considerations. Current Contents, May 28.Google Scholar
  15. Garfield, E. (1996), The significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. The Scientist, 10(17), Sept. 2.Google Scholar
  16. Hanneman, R. (2006), Introduction to Social Network Methods, http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman, accessed on 22 June 2006.
  17. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) (2006), IAATO Overview of Antarctic Tourism 2005–2006 Antarctic Season, Information Paper Submitted by the IAATO to XXIX ATCM, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  18. Leydesdorff, L. (2001), The sociology of science, In: The Challenges of Scientometrics: The Development, Measurement and Self-organization of Scientific Communications, Universal Publishers, pp. 15–35.Google Scholar
  19. Persson, O. (2004), BIBEXCEL, A Tool-Box for Scientometric Analysis, retrieved on 25th December from: http;//www.umu.se/inforsk/Bibexcel.Google Scholar
  20. Small, H. (1973), Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24: 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Unesco Institute of Statistics (2005), Human Resources in R & D.Google Scholar
  22. Wasserman, S., Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis, Methods and Applications. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ministry of Earth SciencesNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.University of MadrasChennaiIndia
  3. 3.Ministry of Earth SciencesNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations