Scientometrics

, Volume 79, Issue 2, pp 351–363 | Cite as

Do new SCI journals have a different national bias?

  • Robert D. Shelton
  • Patricia Foland
  • Roman Gorelskyy
Article

Abstract

National shares of worldwide publications in the Science Citation Index (SCI) have shifted recently. The long-term decline in U.S. share accelerated in the mid-1990s, and now the EU has joined this decline. Not coincidentally, the shares of some countries have increased sharply, particularly those of China, S. Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. Since the SCI constantly adds new journals, one reason might be that newly added journals were more favorable to them. To test this, the database was partitioned into “old journals” (added before 1995) and “new journals,” added afterward. The analysis was done for eight of the 20 fields of science defined by the National Science Indicator CD. In some fields, new journals were indeed much more favorable to the Asians. In some fields, however, new journals were actually more favorable to the U.S. In aggregate over the eight fields analyzed, the size of this effect was too small to account for much of the sharp changes in national shares. Furthermore tests between old and new journals find that differences in most fields are not statistically significant. The results provide evidence that the SCI can be used to accurately track national publication changes over time.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Archambault, E., Vignola-Gagne, E., Cote, G., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y. (2005), Welcome to the linguistic warp zone: Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities. Proceedings of the ISSI 2005 Conference, Stockholm, July 24–28, 2005. pp. 149–158.Google Scholar
  2. ISI (2004), National Science Indicators 1981–2003, Standard. Philadelphia: Thompson ISI (CD).Google Scholar
  3. National Science Board (2006), Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Two volumes. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Jin, B., Rousseau, R. (2005), China’s quantitative expansion phase: Exponential growth, but low impact. Proceedings of the ISSI 2005 Conference, Stockholm, July 24–28, 2005. pp. 362–370.Google Scholar
  5. Leydesdorff, L., Zhou, P. (2005), Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometrics, 63: 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Moed, H. F. (2002), Measuring China’s research performance using the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 53: 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Shelton, R. D. (2006), Relations between national research investment and publication output: Application to an American paradox. Ninth International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Leuven, Sept. 7–9, 2006. Scientometrics, 74(2) 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Testa, J. (2004), The Thomson Scientific Journal Selection Process, 2004. Retrieved from http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/selectionofmaterial/journalselection Feb. 28, 2007.
  9. Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., Bassecoulard, E. (2003), Correcting glasses help fair comparisons in international science landscape: Country indicators as a function of ISI database delineation. Scientometrics, 56(2): 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert D. Shelton
    • 1
  • Patricia Foland
    • 1
  • Roman Gorelskyy
    • 1
  1. 1.WTECBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations