, Volume 113, Issue 3, pp 1245–1267 | Cite as

An overview of the Web of Science record of scientific publications (2004–2013) from Nepal: focus on disciplinary diversity and international collaboration

  • Pitambar Gautam


This study attempts to use bibliometry as a tool for exploration of the passage of development of the science and technology through analysis of the scientific publications from a developing country by taking into account its state of higher education and the unique political, economic and geo-bio-environmental conditions. It deals with Nepal considering its scientific output during 1966–2016 reflected as publications indexed in the Web of Science Database. Preliminary examination of the publication record for Nepal reveals a number of the following characteristics: (1) low volume, negligible growth and lack of distinct trend until 1989; (2) a marked growth followed by stagnation linked to political instability during the next 15 years; and (3) recovery and accelerated growth thereafter. Research publications during 2004–2013 increased thrice compared to 1994–2003, with expansion and shifts in disciplinary profile expressed in Essential Science Indicators 22 fields. Detailed bibliometric analysis of the 2004–2013 publications (3011 articles and reviews) from Nepal suggests the citation impact of about the world average, but very high (76%) average international co-authorship. The disciplinary profile is diverse judging from seven most productive fields (clinical medicine, plant and animal science, environment/ecology, geosciences, agricultural sciences, and chemistry) with 4–40% national disciplinary share. Clinical medicine, geosciences and agricultural sciences exhibit relatively high impact. Fields with the smaller share (< 3%), such as molecular biology and genetics, economics and business, psychiatry and psychology, materials science, and biology and biochemistry, exhibit citation impact distinctly higher than the world average. Publications from Nepal show the presence of a vast international collaborative network that is dominated by authors affiliated to institutions in the USA, India, UK, Japan, South Korea and Germany. Based on the analysis of the disciplinary diversity and the national versus global relative disciplinary shares, Nepal’s publication profile is inferred to be a hybrid of the ‘bio-environmental’ and ‘western’ models. Concerning the state of the development of science and technology in Nepal during 2004–2013, the high dependence on international collaboration in the internationally visible publications in most of the bio-environmental, physico-chemical and engineering fields points to basically a ‘building-up stage’. In clinical medicine (with a large share of public health) and geosciences, however, Nepal has demonstrated research strengths evident from the high citation impact in these fields. Moreover, the available data suggest that significant advances were made in higher education sector in both fields during the last 25 years. Despite the notable negative effect of the prolonged domestic armed political conflict on the research activities and acquisition of new data in the field-based sciences, the post-conflict period shows signs of recovery in both domestic and international collaborations leading to again an accelerated growth in scientific publications.


Bibliometrics Web of Science Co-word analysis Research collaboration Nepal Citation impact International co-authorship Science mapping Higher education Developing country 



The author would like to express sincere gratitude to Dr. Yuji Sakakibara, former Director General of NISTEP, Tokyo, for giving very practical tips on rapid percentile analysis of bibliographic data in terms of scientific fields. Critical and constructive comments as well as encouragements by an anonymous reviewer and Professor Wolfgang Glänzel, the chief editor, on the earlier versions of the manuscript prompted renewed analyses by the author leading to significant additions and improvements in the revised manuscript. A part of this material was presented during the 10th International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics (WIS) held in Ilmenau, Germany.


  1. Adhikari, P., & Samford, S. (2013). The Nepali State and the dynamics of the Maoist insurgency. Studies in Comparative International Development, 48(4), 457–481. doi: 10.1007/s12116-012-9125-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adhikary, S. (2013). Chikitsa Shikshama Fadko (a leap in medical education in Nepal). Teacher Monthly, Lalitpur, 390p. ISBN: 978-9937-8750-0-4 (in Nepali).Google Scholar
  3. Asghar, I., Cang, S., & Yu, H. (2017). Assistive technology for people with dementia: An overview and bibliometric study. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 34, 5–19. doi: 10.1111/hir.12173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bajwa, R. S., & Yaldram, K. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology research in Pakistan. Scientometrics, 95, 529. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0839-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frame, J. D. (1977). Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribbean. Interciencia, 2, 143–148.Google Scholar
  6. Gautam, P. (2016). Comparative analysis of scientific publications of research entities using multiple disciplinary classifications. In Proceedings of the 2016 IIAI 5th international congress on advanced applied informatics, Kumamoto, Japan, pp. 524–528. doi: 10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2016.117.
  7. Gautam, P. (2017). Detection of bibliographic coupling communities using research output (2004–2013) from Nepal. In Proceedings of the 2017 IIAI 6th international congress on advanced applied informatics, Hamamatsu, Japan (in press).Google Scholar
  8. Gautam, P., & Yanagiya, R. (2012). Reflection of cross-disciplinary research at Creative Research Institution (Hokkaido University) in the web of science database: appraisal and visualization using bibliometry. Scientometrics, 93(1), 101–111. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0655-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glänzel, W. (2000). Science in Scandinavia: a Bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 48(2), 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glänzel, W. (2003). A course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators. Course handouts. Accessed on 18 August 2016.
  11. Gupta, B. M., & Bala, A. (2012). S&T publications output of Nepal: A quantitative analysis, 2001–2010. Scientometrics, 93(3), 1029–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gurung, A., & Bell, M. L. (2013). The state of scientific evidence on air pollution and human health in Nepal. Environmental Research, 124, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huntington, I., Shrestha, S., Reich, N. G., & Hagopian, A. (2012). Career intentions of medical students in the setting of Nepal’s rapidly expanding private medical education system. Health Policy and Planning, 27(5), 417–428. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czr052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kato, M., & Chayama, H. (2010). Analysis on research activities in developing countries and international networking of researchers. Research material no. 178, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan.Google Scholar
  15. Mahbuba, D., & Rousseau, R. (2010). Scientific research in the Indian subcontinent: Selected trends and indicators 1973–2007 comparing Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka with India, the local giant. Scientometrics, 84(2), 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miyake, H., Sapkota, S. N., Upreti, B. N., Bollinger, L., Kobayashi, T., & Takenaka, H. (2017). Preface. Special issue “The 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and Himalayan studies: First results”. Earth, Planets and Space, 69, 12. doi: 10.1186/s40623-016-0597-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-3714-6.Google Scholar
  18. Moed, H., & Halevi, G. (2014). Country trends: Tracking scientific development and collaborations—The case of 25 Asian counties. Research trends, 38.
  19. NAST (2011). Science and technology indicators of Nepal, 2010. Unpublished report by Nepal Academy of Science and Technology, Lalitpur, Kathmandu, Nepal.Google Scholar
  20. NepJol (2017). Nepal Journal. Accessed 19 May 2017.
  21. Rafols, I., Ciarli, T., & Chavarro, D. (2015). Under-reporting research relevant to local needs in the global south. Database biases in the representation of knowledge on rice. In Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, pp. 598–599.Google Scholar
  22. Simkhada, P. P., Baral, Y. R., & van Teijlingen, E. R. (2010). Health and medical research in Nepal: A bibliometric review. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 22(4), 492–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. Program online: 2 February 2014.
  24. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding et al. (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact (pp. 285–320). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13.
  25. Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2009). A comparison of scopus and web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81(2), 587–600. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-2178-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vinkler, P. (2010). The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I., Abad-García, M.-F., Mugnaini, R., & Meijer, I. (2016). Scientific research on diseases: The distinct profile of developed and developing countries. In Book of proceedings of the 21st international conference on science and technology indicators, Valencia, Spain, pp. 419–423. doi: 10.4995/STI2016.2016.4543.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Creative Research Institution (CRIS)Hokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations