Advertisement

Scientific research production of India and China in environmental chemistry: a bibliometric assessment

  • A. L. SrivastavEmail author
  • T. Kaur
  • L. Rani
  • A. Kumar
Review

Abstract

Environmental contamination has emerged as a global concern mostly due to anthropogenic activities. Numerous research papers are published throughout the world in the research area of environmental chemistry due to its gigantic scope to overcome this problem in a sustained way. To validate these documentations, bibliometric evaluation of the research outcomes, i.e. publications, citations, citations/document of top 30 countries of the world, has been conducted in this paper during 1996–2017. India and China were further selected for the comparison of research growth related to GDP, annual growth, universities’ count and indexed scientific journals in the above discipline during 2008–2017. Required bibliometric information was retrieved from Scopus-linked SCImago electronic database. China spent 2.1% of its total GDP on research, while only 0.6% was spent by India in the year of 2017–18. Self-citation per document for the USA, China and India was 12.94, 9.88 and 5.92, respectively, accounting for the probable reason for the low rank and low H index of India as compared to the USA and China. The solution-oriented research through streamlined collaborative works with the local and international researchers should be prioritized by Indian policy makers to mitigate the aforementioned problems.

Keywords

Bibliometric Citations per document Environmental chemistry India and China Research production SCImago Self-citations 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to Dr. Sushil Kumar, Chitkara University School of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Solan, Himachal Pradesh 174103 (India), for his invaluable support and continuous encouragement for writing this research paper.

References

  1. D’Amato G, Cecchi L, D’Amato M, Liccardi G (2010) Urban air pollution and climate change as environmental risk factors of respiratory allergy: an update. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 20(2):95–102Google Scholar
  2. Du M, Wang B, Zhang N (2018) National research funding and energy efficiency: evidence from the National Science Foundation of China. Energy Policy 120:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fu HZ, Wang MH, Ho YS (2013) Mapping of drinking water research: a bibliometric analysis of research output during 1992–2011. Sci Total Environ 443:757–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Garfield E (2006) The history and meaning of the impact factor. JAMA 295:90–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Glynn RW, Chin JZ, Kerin MJ, Karl SJ (2010) Representation of cancer in the medical literature—a bibliometric analysis. PLoS ONE 5(11):e13902.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grandjean P, Eriksen ML, Ellegaard O, Wallin JA (2011) The Matthew effect in environmental science publication: a bibliometric analysis of chemical substances in journal articles. Environ Heal 10(96):1–8Google Scholar
  7. Haunschild R, Bornmann L, Marx W (2016) Climate change research in view of bibliometrics. PLoS ONE 11(7):e0160393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoek G, Krishnan RM, Beelen R, Peters A, Ostro B, Brunekreef B, Kaufman JD (2013) Long term air pollution exposure and cardio-respiratory mortality: a review. Environ Heal 12(1):43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hu MC, Tseng CY (2007) Technological interdependence and knowledge diffusion in the building of national innovative capacity: the role of Taiwan’s chemical industry. Technol Forecast Soc Change 74(3):298–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hu J, Ma Y, Zhang L, Gan F, Ho YS (2010) A historical review and bibliometric analysis of research on lead in drinking water field from 1991 to 2007. Sci Total Environ 408:1738–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ioannidis JPA (2006) Concentration of the most-cited papers in the scientific literature: analysis of journal ecosystems. PLoS ONE 1(1):e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kumar V (2017) The role of university research centers in promoting research. J Acad Mark Sci 2017(45):453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li L (2017) China’s manufacturing locus in 2025: with a comparison of “made-in-China 2025”and “industry 4.0”. Technol Forecast Soc Change.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li N, Xia T, Nel AE (2008) The role of oxidative stress in ambient particulate matter induced lung diseases and its implications in the toxicity of engineered nanoparticles. Free Radic Biol Med 44(9):1689–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li J, Wang MH, Ho YS (2011) Trends in research on global climate change: a science citation index expanded—based analysis. Glob Planet Change 77:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MacNee W, Donaldson K (2003) Mechanism of lung injury caused by PM10 and ultrafine particles with special reference to COPD. Eur Respir J Suppl 21(40):47S–51SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mantikayan JM, Abdulgani MA (2018) Factors affecting faculty research productivity: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. JPAIR Multidiscip Res.  https://doi.org/10.7719/jpair.v31i1.561 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mao G, Huang N, Chen L, Wang H (2018) Research on biomass energy and environment from the past to the future: a bibliometric analysis. Sci Total Environ 635:1081–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mebratu D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 18:493–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meo SA, Al-Saadi M (2007) Right path of publishing a scientific paper to a right journal: academic paper based case study. Pak J Med Sci 23(6):946–949Google Scholar
  21. Meo SA, AlMasri AA, Usmani AM, Memon AN, Zaidi SZ (2013) Impact of GDP, spending on R&D, number of universities and scientific journals on research publications among Asian countries. PLoS ONE 8(6):e66449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mesdaghinia A, Younesian M, Nasseri S, Nabizadeh Nodehi R, Hadi M (2015) A bibliometric and trend analysis on the water-related risk assessment studies for cryptosporidium pathogen. Iran J Parasitol 10(3):338–350Google Scholar
  24. Moortel KD, Crispeels T (2018) International university-university technology transfer: srategic management framework. Technol Forecast Soc Change.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mori H, Nakayama T (2013) Academic Impact of qualitative studies in healthcare: bibliometric analysis. PLoS ONE 8(3):e57371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nachega JB, Uthman OA, Ho YS, Lo M, Anude C, Kayembe P, Wabwire-Mangen F, Gomo E, Sow PS, Obike U, Kusiaku T, Mills EJ, Mayosi BM, Ijsselmuiden C (2012) Current status and future prospects of epidemiology and public health training and research in the WHO African region. Inter J Epidemiol 41:1829–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Newman MEJ (2001) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(2):404–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Samoli E, Nastos PT, Paliatsos AG, Katsouyanni K, Priftis KN (2011) Acute effects of air pollution on pediatric asthma exacerbation: evidence of association and effect modification. Environ Res 111(3):418–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sauvé S, Bernard S, Sloan P (2016) Environmental sciences, sustainable development and circular economy: alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research. Environ Dev 17:48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwartz J (1995) Short term fluctuations in air pollution and hospital admissions of the elderly for respiratory disease. Thorax 50(5):531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP) (2013) Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. Available at http://www.dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/STI%20Policy%202013-English.pdf
  32. SCImago website for Country ranking (2018). Available: https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=2300&category=2304. Accessed 25 June 2018
  33. Smith DR (2009) A 30-year citation analysis of bibliometric trends at the archives of environmental health, 1975–2004. Arch Environ Occup Health 64(1):43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. State Council of China (SCC) (2006). Medium-to-long term program of national science and technology development 2006–2020Google Scholar
  35. State Council of China (SCC) (2011). 12th Five-year programme 2011–2015Google Scholar
  36. STS (2010) China statistical communiqué of science and technology spending in 2010, released jointly by national statistical bureau, ministry of science and technology and ministry of finance, China (www.sts.org.cn)
  37. STS (2011) China science and technology statistics data book, online database, ministry of science and technology, China (www.sts.org.cn)
  38. Šubelj L, Bajec M, Boshkoska BM, Kastrin A, Levnajić Z (2015) Quantifying the consistency of scientific databases. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0127390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sweileh WM, Shraim NY, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF, AbuTaha AS, Zyoud SH (2016) Bibliometric analysis of global scientific research on carbapenem resistance (1986–2015). Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 15(1):56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, Zyoud SH, Sawalha AF (2018) Outdoor air pollution and respiratory health: a bibliometric analysis of publications in peer-reviewed journals (1900–2017). Multidiscip Respir Med 13:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tol RSJ (2009) The Matthew effect defined and tested for the 100 most prolific economists. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 60:420–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tolba M, Saab N (2009) Impact of climate change on Arab countries—a report of the Arab forum for environment and development. http://www.afedonline.org/afedreport09/Full%20English%20Report.pdf
  43. van der Hel S, Biermann F (2017) The authority of science in sustainability governance: a structured comparison of six science institutions engaged with the sustainable development goals. Environ Sci Policy 77:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Noorden R (2012) Global mobility: science on the move. Nature 490(7420):326–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wallin JA (2005) Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 97:261–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wambu EW, Ho YS (2016) A bibliometric analysis of drinking water research in Africa. Water SA 42(4):612–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. WIPO, Cornell University and INSEAD (2018) The global innovation index 2018: energizing the world with innovation. Dutta S, Lanvin B, Wunsch S. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva. ISSN 2263-3993 ISBN 979-10-95870-09-8. 11th EditionGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu Y (2013) Trends and prospects in China’s R&D sector, Discussion paper series, Economics, UWA Business School, University of Western AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhao L, Deng J, Sun P, Liu J, Ji Y, Nakada N, Qiao Z, Tanaka H, Yang Y (2018) Nanomaterials for treating emerging contaminants in water by adsorption and photocatalysis: systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Sci Total Environ 627:1253–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zyoud SH, Fuchs-Hanusch D (2016) Estimates of Arab world research productivity associated with desalination: a bibliometric analysis. IDA J Desalin Water Reuse 7:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zyoud SH, Al-Rawajfeh AE, Shaheen HQ, Fuchs-Hanusch D (2016) Benchmarking the scientific output of industrial wastewater research in Arab world by utilizing bibliometric techniques. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 23:10288–10300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zyoud SH, Fuchs-Hanusch D, Zyoud S, Al-Rawajfeh HAE, Shaheen HQ (2017) A bibliometric-based evaluation on environmental research in the Arab world. Int J Environ Sci Technol 14:689–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chitkara University School of Engineering and TechnologyChitkara UniversitySolanIndia

Personalised recommendations