Scientometrics

, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp 479–493 | Cite as

The global geography of scientific visibility: a deconcentration process (1999–2011)

  • Marion Maisonobe
  • Michel Grossetti
  • Béatrice Milard
  • Laurent Jégou
  • Denis Eckert
Article

Abstract

This article aims to ascertain whether the territorial redistribution observed in the geography of scientific production between 1999 and 2008 translated into a redistribution of the geography of citations, and therefore of scientific visibility. Are publications from formerly marginal locations able to influence researchers based in “central locations”, or is their impact mostly “provincial”? Because the distribution of citations is extremely asymmetrical, it could very well be that the geographic de-concentration of production activities did not lead to the geographic de-concentration of citations, but instead contributed to creating increasingly asymmetrical flows of information for the benefit of “central” cities and countries. This article aims to verify whether this is the case by analysing the geographic distribution of citations received, using a method for localising the publications indexed in the Web of Science by urban areas. Results show a growing convergence between the geography of scientific production and that of scientific citations. The number of citations received by the world’s 30 top publishing countries and cities tended to edge closer to the global average. While Singapore, China, India and Iran suffered from a deficit of visibility in 2000, their level considerably improved by 2007. Moreover, a decrease in the discrepancy between cities’ scientific visibility is observed in almost all countries of the world, except for three: Sweden, Egypt and Denmark. To finish, our results show that the gap between the share of citations and the share of publications has decreased across all disciplines. A significant asymmetry in favour of English-speaking countries has remained in the distribution of citations in humanities and social sciences (but it is diminishing).

Keywords

Scientific visibility Urban areas Deconcentration process Citation analysis World level 

References

  1. Adams, J., & Pendlebury, D. (2010). Global research report: United States. Leeds: Evidence.Google Scholar
  2. Alderson, A. S., Beckfield, J., & Sprague-Jones, J. (2010). Intercity relations and globalisation: The evolution of the global urban hierarchy, 1981–2007. Urban Studies, 47(9), 1899–1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., et al. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaverstock, J. V., Doel, M. A., Hubbard, P. J., et al. (2002). Attending to the world: competition, cooperation and connectivity in the World City Network. Global Networks, 2(2), 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Derudder, B., Taylor, P., Ni, P., et al. (2010). Pathways of change: Shifting connectivities in the World City Network, 2000–2008. Urban Studies, 47(9), 1861–1877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., & Meyer, M. (2008). ‘Triad’ or ‘tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world. Scientometrics, 74(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grossetti, M., Eckert, D., Gingras, Y., et al. (2014). Cities and the geographical deconcentration of scientific activity: A multilevel analysis of publications (1987–2007). Urban Studies, 51(10), 2219–2234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Halffman, W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Is inequality among universities increasing? Gini coefficients and the elusive rise of elite universities. Minerva, 48(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Langfeldt, L., Benner, M., Siverstsen, G., et al. (2015). Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 661–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2009). The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900–2007. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 858–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Larivière, V., Macaluso, B., Archambault, É., et al. (2010). Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2014). The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1 and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 606–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Louvel, S., & Lange, S. (2010). L’évaluation de la recherche: l’exemple de trois pays européens. Sciences de la société, 79, 11–26.Google Scholar
  14. Lozano, G. A., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers’ citations in the digital age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2140–2145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1986). Quantitative measures of communication in science: A study of the formal level. Social Studies of Science, 16(1), 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maisonobe, M., Grossetti, M., Milard, B., et al. (2016). L’évolution mondiale des réseaux de collaborations scientifiques entre villes: des échelles multiples. Revue française de sociologie, 57(3), 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matthiessen, C. W., Schwarz, A. W., & Find, S. (2010). World cities of scientific knowledge: Systems, networks and potential dynamics. An analysis based on bibliometric indicators. Urban Studies, 47(9), 1879–1897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Musselin, C. (2004). Les projets européens: coopération ou élitisme? Societal, Paris: Institut de l’entreprise. Available from: http://www.institut-entreprise.fr/sites/default/files/article_de_revue/docs/documents_internes/societal-44-28-musselin-dossier.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2014.
  19. Oba, J. (2015). La réforme de l’Université japonaise entre volonté politique et réalité pratique. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 64, 165–174.Google Scholar
  20. Orozco Pereira, R. A., & Derudder, B. (2010). Determinants of dynamics in the World City Network, 2000–2004. Urban Studies, 47(9), 1949–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., et al. (Eds.). (2009). University Governance. Western European comparative perspectives (1st ed.). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Shattock, M. (2014). International trends in University Governance: Autonomy self-government and the distribution of authority. Taylor & Francis: International Studies in Higher Education.Google Scholar
  23. Wallace, M. L., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2009). Modeling a century of citation distributions. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zitt, M., Barré, R., Sigogneau, A., et al. (1999). Territorial concentration and evolution of science and technology activities in the European Union: A descriptive analysis. Research Policy, 28(5), 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zuckerman, H. (1987). Citation analysis and the complex problem of intellectual influence. Scientometrics, 12(5), 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion Maisonobe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michel Grossetti
    • 2
  • Béatrice Milard
    • 2
  • Laurent Jégou
    • 2
  • Denis Eckert
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Fédération CNRS INCREASE, FR3707Université de PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  2. 2.UMR LISST CNRSUniversité de ToulouseToulouseFrance
  3. 3.Centre Marc Bloch Berlin, UMIFRE CNRS-MAEAn-Institut der Humboldt UniversitätBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations