, Volume 105, Issue 2, pp 1157–1166 | Cite as

Middle East: research productivity and performance across nations

  • Sumeer GulEmail author
  • Nahida Tun Nisa
  • Tariq Ahmad Shah
  • Sangita Gupta
  • Asifa Jan
  • Suhail Ahmad


The aim of the paper is to evaluate the research productivity and performance of countries that fall in the Middle East. The data was gathered from the research analytical tool of Thomson Reuters, InCites. The data was collected over a period of 33 years (1981 through 2013) with “global comparisons” as the dataset and “compare countries/territories” as the report name under “national comparisons”. The data was collected from 15 countries of Middle East (as per InCites categorization) viz; Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Each country was assessed on the basis of six parameters: total no. of web of science documents; total citation count; average citations per documents, percentage of cited documents; impact relative to the world; and aggregate performance indicator. On all these parameters, Israel occupies the first position. The 2nd rank in terms of total web of science documents and total citation count is occupied by Turkey. Kuwait has 2nd highest percentage of cited documents, and Lebanon occupies 2nd rank in terms of relative impact (in comparison to world). In terms of aggregate performance, Qatar ranks 2nd.


Research output Research performance InCites Bibliometrics Research indicators Research analytics Analytical tools Middle East 


  1. Agasisti, T., Catalano, G., Landoni, P., & Verganti, R. (2012). Evaluating the performance of academic departments: An analysis of research-related output efficiency. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 2–14. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvr001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agasisti, T., Dal Bianco, A., Landoni, P., Sala, A., & Salerno, M. (2011). Evaluating the efficiency of research in academic departments: An empirical analysis in an Italian region. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(3), 267–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00489.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akhmat, G., Zaman, K., Shukui, T., Javed, Y., & Khan, M. M. (2014). Relationship between educational indicators and research outcomes in a panel of top twenty nations: Windows of opportunity. Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 349–361. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alasehir, O., Cakir, M. P., Acarturk, C., Baykal, N., & Akbulut, U. (2014). URAP-TR: a national ranking for Turkish universities based on academic performance. Scientometrics, 101(1), 159–178. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1333-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbaro, A., Gentili, D., & Rebuffi, C. (2014). Altmetrics as new indicators of scientific impact. Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, 10(1), 4. Retrieved from
  6. Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baudoin, L., Haeffner-Cavaillon, N., Pinhas, N., Mouchet, S., & Kordon, C. (2004). Bibliometric indicators realities, myth and prospective. Medecine Sciences: M/S, 20(10), 909–915. doi: 10.1051/medsci/20042010909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One, 4(6), e6022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of US News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2005). Bibliometric indicators at the micro-level: Some results in the area of natural resources at the Spanish CSIC. Research Evaluation, 14(2), 110–120. doi: 10.3152/147154405781776238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193–203. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deineko, V. G., & Woeginger, G. J. (2009). A new family of scientific impact measures: The generalized Kosmulski-indices. Scientometrics, 80(3), 819–826. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-2130-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ding, Z. Q., Ge, J. P., Wu, X. M., & Zheng, X. N. (2013). Bibliometrics evaluation of research performance in pharmacology/pharmacy: China relative to ten representative countries. Scientometrics, 96(3), 829–844. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-0968-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dorch, S. B. F. (2013). Altmetrics to quantify the impact of scientific research published in open full text repositories. hprints & Humanities,. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6773.Google Scholar
  16. Durieux, V., & Gevenois, P. A. (2010). Bibliometric indicators: Quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology, 255(2), 342–351. doi: 10.1148/radiol.09090626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Egghe, L. (2009). Performance and its relation with productivity in Lotkaian systems. Scientometrics, 81(2), 567–585. doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-2226-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fenner, M. (2014). Altmetrics and other novel measures for scientific impact. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 179–189). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2013). Opinion paper: Thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 96(1), 381–394. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0898-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gleick, P. H. (1994). Water, war & peace in the Middle East. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 36(3), 6–42. doi: 10.1080/00139157.1994.9929154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glossary. (2010). Aggregate performance indicator. Retrieved from
  22. Gómez, I., Bordons, M., Fernández, M. T., & Morillo, F. (2009). Structure and research performance of Spanish universities. Scientometrics, 79(1), 131–146. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0408-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gonzalez, L. J. (2011). The encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf. Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts, Library Journal, 136(2), 83–+.Google Scholar
  24. Gonzalez-Brambilaa, C., & Velosob, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36(7), 1035–1051. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffith, A., & Rask, K. (2007). The influence of the US News and World Report collegiate rankings on the matriculation decision of high-ability students: 1995–2004. Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 244–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hazelkorn, E. (2007). The impact of league tables and ranking system on higher education decision making. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hazelkorn, E. (2013). Reflections on a decade of global rankings: What we’ve learned and outstanding issues. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 35(2), 8–33.Google Scholar
  29. Israel. (2014). Israel. Retrieved from Wikipedia online Encyclopedia
  30. Joshi, M. A. (2014). Bibliometric indicators for evaluating the quality of scientific publications. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, 15(2), 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Katz, J. S. (1999). Bibliometric indicators and the social sciences. In U. O. S. Spru (Ed.) Research Report, (December), 1–11. ESRC Polaris House. Retrieved from
  32. Khamis, V. (2012). Impact of war, religiosity and ideology on PTSD and psychiatric disorders in adolescents from Gaza Strip and South Lebanon. Social Science and Medicine, 74(12), 2005–2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kriesberg, L. (2009). The Middle East Conflict: From Bad to Worse to War. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 41(2), 354–355. doi: 10.1017/S0020743809090916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lu, L., & Thies, C. G. (2013). War, rivalry, and state building in the Middle East. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 239–253. doi: 10.1177/1065912912448538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meo, S. A., Usmani, A. M., Vohra, M. S., & Bukhari, I. A. (2013). Impact of GDP, spending on R&D, number of universities and scientific journals on research publications in pharmacological sciences in Middle East. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, 17(20), 2697–2705.Google Scholar
  36. Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265–277. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moed, H. F., de Moya-Anegón, F., López-Illescas, C., & Visser, M. (2011). Is concentration of university research associated with better research performance? Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 649–658. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Navarrete, I. A., & Asio, V. B. (2014). Research productivity in soil science in the Philippines. Scientometrics, 100(1), 261–272. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1202-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parker, J. N., Allesina, S., & Lortie, C. J. (2012). Characterizing a scientific elite (B): Publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics, 94(2), 469–480. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0859-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pierce, S. J. (1992). On the origin and meaning of bibliometric indicators—Journals in the Social-Sciences, 1886–1985. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(7), 477–487. doi: 10.1002/(Sici)1097-4571(199208)43:7%3C477::Aid-Asi2%3E3.0.Co;2-E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Podoler, G. (2013). A South Korean progressive outlook on the Middle East conflict: Contextualizing Hankyoreh’s coverage of the Gaza War. Korea Observer, 44(2), 223–247.Google Scholar
  42. Prathap, G. (2014a). A three-class, three-dimensional bibliometric performance indicator. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(7), 1506–1508. doi: 10.1002/asi.23120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prathap, G. (2014b). Big data and false discovery: analyses of bibliometric indicators from large data sets. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1421–1422. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1063-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prathap, G. (2014c). Quantity, quality, and consistency as bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(1), 214. doi: 10.1002/asi.23008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quandt, W. B. (2009). The cold war in the Middle East: Regional conflict and the superpowers, 1967–1973. Journal of Cold War Studies, 11(1), 159–161. doi: 10.1162/jcws.2009.11.1.159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rabil, R. (2006). Syria, the United States, and the War on Terror in the Middle East. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  47. Ranking Web of Research Centers. (2014). Middle East. Retrieved from
  48. Ranking Web of Universities. (2014). Middle East. Retrieved from
  49. Rehn, C., Kronman, U., & Wadskog, D. (2007). Bibliometric indicators. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Official Journal of the UEMS European Board of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 43(6), 469–470. Karolinska Institutet University Library. Retrieved from
  50. Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sorli, M. E. (2005). Why is there so much conflict in the Middle East? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(1), 141–165. doi: 10.1177/0022002704270824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sponsler, B. A. (2009). The role and relevance of rankings in higher education policymaking. Institute for Higher Education Policy: Issue Brief.Google Scholar
  53. Terry, J. (2005). U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East: The role of lobbies and special interest groups. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  54. The World Bank. (2014). Countries and economies. Retrieved from
  55. Thomson Reuters. (2014a). InCites. The importance of unification. Research analytics. Retrieved from
  56. Thomson Reuters. (2014b). Research evaluation and objective analysis of your people, programs and peers. Research analytics. Retrieved from
  57. Tsay, M.-Y., & Ma, S.-S. (2003). The nature and relationship between the productivity of journals and their citations in semiconductor literature. Scientometrics, 56(2), 201–222. doi: 10.1023/A:1021915127459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: A profusion of measures. Nature, 465(7300), 864–866. doi: 10.1038/465864a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vieira, E. S., Cabral, J. A. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2014). How good is a model based on bibliometric indicators in predicting the final decisions made by peers? Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 390–405. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-L. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science (New York, N.Y.), 342(6154), 127–132. Retrieved from
  61. Williams, R. (2011). The Cold War in the Middle East: Regional conflict and the superpowers 1967-73. Cold War History, 11(2), 289–290. doi: 10.1080/14682745.2011.569166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sumeer Gul
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nahida Tun Nisa
    • 2
  • Tariq Ahmad Shah
    • 3
  • Sangita Gupta
    • 4
  • Asifa Jan
    • 5
  • Suhail Ahmad
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of KashmirSrinagarIndia
  2. 2.Department of BotanyGovernment College for WomenSrinagarIndia
  3. 3.Islamic University of Science and TechnologyKashmirIndia
  4. 4.Department of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of JammuJammuIndia
  5. 5.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of KashmirSrinagarIndia
  6. 6.Giessen UniversityGiessenGermany
  7. 7.Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany
  8. 8.Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations