Research landscape of the BRICS countries: current trends in research output, thematic structures of publications, and the relative influence of partners
This article provides the comprehensive analysis of research landscape in BRICS countries in different aspects: level of their publication activity and contribution to the global process of knowledge generation; thematic structure of publications of BRICS countries, their scientific specialization; quality of articles measured by citation indicators; similarity of thematic structures of publications; international research collaboration profiles; and finally closeness and relative influence of each country in intra-BRICS collaborating pairs. Special sections of the article are devoted to review of the literature, which discusses the main articles on various aspects of BRICS countries’ publication activity and their international research collaboration and to description the database and set of various bibliometric indicators, used in our analysis. We use Scopus database and the timespan of our research covers 2001–2015 years that allows us to identify key points in development of research landscapes of BRICS countries. The empirical part of the article is structured as follows. First, we provide the overview of publication activity and thematic structure of BRICS countries. Second, we measure the closeness of thematic structure of publications versus each other and versus general research agenda in the world using different indices of structural difference. Third part is the analysis of research collaboration with clear visualization of its thematic structure, identification of potential areas of collaboration and detection the influential countries in intra-BRICS collaborating pairs. We use wide range of bibliometric indicators: citation indicators; indices of structural difference; indicators of scientific collaboration. We apply different approaches to visualise data in form of different illustrative graphs including colored tables to do our research easy-to-read-and understand. The results of the study may be of interest to decision makers in determining the conscientious research story of the BRICS countries and priorities setting for multilateral scientific and technological cooperation, as well as for researchers dealing with relevant problems.
KeywordsBRICS Bibliometric analysis Scientific collaboration Disciplinary structure Structural difference Collaboration closeness Salton index Cosine similarity index Gatev index Relative comparative advantages index Index of relative influence of scientific partners
The research leading to these results has received funding from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in 2017–2108 (Project ID: RFMEFI57217X0005).
- Adams, J., Pendlebury, D., & Stembridge, B. (2013). Building bricks: Exploring the global research and innovation impact of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Korea. Toronto: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
- Archambault, É., Beauchesne, O. H., Côté, G., & Roberge, G. (2011). Scale-adjusted metrics of scientific collaboration. In Proceedings of the 13th conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (ISSI 2011), Durban (pp. 78–88).Google Scholar
- Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320–1326.Google Scholar
- 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), 1–20.Google Scholar
- Barre, R. (1987). A strategic assessment of the scientific performance of five countries. Science and Technology Studies, 5(1), 32–38.Google Scholar
- Bartošová, J., & Bína, V. (2010). Influence of the relative poverty on the structure of household expenditures in the Czech Republic. In ICABR 2008–VI. International conference on applied business research Ras Al Khaimah 29.11. 2010–03.12 (pp. 19–28).Google Scholar
- Bērziņš, J., Lešinskis, I., & Prauliņš, A. (2012). Analysis of Structure of Cargo Turnover at Latvia’s Ports. Journal of Maritime Transport and Engineering, 1(1), 10–19.Google Scholar
- Chen, H. H., Gou, L., Zhang, X., & Giles, C. L. (2011). Collabseer: A search engine for collaboration discovery. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 231–240). ACM.Google Scholar
- Colledge, L., & Verlinde, R. (2014). Scival metrics guidebook. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Debackere, K., & Luwel, M. (2004). Patent data for monitoring S&T portfolios. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 569–585). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Dniestrzański, P., & Łyko, J. (2015). The disproportion of allocation under the given boundary conditions. Economy and Business Journal, 9(1), 118–126.Google Scholar
- Gatev, K. (1979). Statistical evaluation of the differences between structures. In. Theoretical and methodological problems of statistics (pp. 91–108), Moscow: Statistika.Google Scholar
- Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, vol. 11 (pp. 257–279).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. Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal, 10(2), 105–119.Google Scholar
- Kim, Y. J., Lee, H. K., Youn, S., & Oh, D. H. (2012). Measuring the quality of research papers in G7 and BRICs countries using R 2 nIF indicator. In Proceedings of STI 2012: International conference on science and technology indicators (pp. 875–876).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(3), 228–236.Google Scholar
- Leydesdorff, L. (2008). On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data: Salton’s Cosine versus the Jaccard index. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 77–85.Google Scholar
- Leydesdorff, L. (2010). What can heterogeneity add to the scientometric map? Steps towards algorithmic historiography. arXiv preprint arXiv:1002.0532.
- Mertins, K. (2002). Innovation in Indonesia. Assessment of the National Innovation System and Approaches for Improvement. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag. http://www.innovationssysteme.fraunhofer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/InnoSys/Documents/04_Referenzen/PERISKOP_Buch.pdf.
- Meyer, N. P., & Nascimento, M. (2014). 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 Pretoria: Department of International Relations and Cooperation (pp. 117–133).Google Scholar
- Morozova, S. N. (2013). Structural analysis of milk products quality. In Economic and social development: Book of proceedings, paper No. 69.Google Scholar
- Pinheiro, R., & Pillay, P. (2013). ‘What are the BRIC countries doing?—policies adopted by BRIC countries to increase research capacity, and data showing both research output and economic impact. In P. Maassen & T. Moja (Eds.), Knowledge production at South African universities: Policies and Practices. Cape Town: African Minds.Google Scholar
- Rafols, I., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(9), 1823–1835.Google Scholar
- Reznik-Zellen, R. (2016). Benchmarking with SciVal in Scholarly communication and research services. Elsevier LibraryConnect. https://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/LCN_Reznik-Zellen_April-25-2016.pdf. Accessed 2 August 2018.
- Sokolov, A., Shashnov, S., Kotsemir, M., & Grebenyuk, A. (2018). Common STI priorities for a group of countries: The BRICS case. In Paper presented at 6th international conference on future-oriented Technology analysis (FTA)—future in the making, Brussels, 4–5 June 2018 (web access at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/fta2018-paper-c7-sokolov.pdf).
- Thiagarajan, R., Manjunath, G., & Stumptner, M. (2008). Finding experts by semantic matching of user profiles. Doctoral dissertation, CEUR-WS.Google Scholar
- Vivekanandhan, S., & Sivasamy, K. Pollution control research output in BRIC countries during 2006–2015 from SCOPUS database: A scientometric analysis. International Journal of Next Generation Library and Technologies, 3(2), paper No 5.Google Scholar