Time series-based bibliometric analysis of the dynamics of scientific production

Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

We make a comparative study of the dynamics of scientific production for several countries, in terms of papers published, applying time series tools to bibliometric data. The histories of scientific development of groups of countries are compared, seeking to understand the causes and circumstances that led to some dynamic response. We were able to identify dynamical changes that affected global scientific production. Our analysis identified instances where global production was influenced by social, political and economic circumstances. The role of the most productive countries in the current dynamics of knowledge production is also studied. We obtained a vector auto regressive model that describes their joint influences. Thus, the effect of changes in the production of one country on the production of the others can be assessed. The results indicate that the USA and the United Kingdom are still the most influential countries in science, despite the fast growth of China’s production.

Keywords

Scientific output Bibliometrics Dynamic process Time series analysis Comparative scientific production 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for helpful comments and suggestions by the reviewers.

References

  1. Anadón, L. D. (2012). Missions-oriented R&D institutions in energy between 2000 and 2010: A comparative analysis of China, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Research Policy, 41(10), 1742–1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Box, G . E., Jenkins, G . M., Reinsel, G . C., & Ljung, G . M. (2015). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control. Hoboken: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, T. (2010). Get the experts on board. Nature, 465(7300), 870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockwell, P. J., & Davis, R. A. (2016). Introduction to time series and forecasting. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Callon, M., Rip, A., & Law, J. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, F. B. R. W. (1998). Distributed work arrangements: A research framework. The Information Society, 14(2), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cummings, J. N. & Kiesler, S. (2008). Who collaborates successfully?: Prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 437–446). ACM.Google Scholar
  9. Enders, W. (2004). Applied econometric time series. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Foray, D., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2012). Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs? Research Policy, 41(10), 1697–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garfield, E. (1964). “Science Citation Index”-a new dimension in indexing. Science, 144(3619), 649–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kempener, R., Anadon, L. D., & Condor, J. (2010). Governmental energy innovation investments, policies, and institutions in the major emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico: China, and South Africa. In Energy technology innovation policy discussion paper (p. 16).Google Scholar
  13. Larsen, P. O., & Von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by science citation index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Statistics for the dynamic analysis of scientometric data: The evolution of the sciences in terms of trajectories and regimes. Scientometrics, 96(3), 731–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2009). A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lütkepohl, H. (2005). New introduction to multiple time series analysis. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Mabe, M., & Amin, M. (2001). Growth dynamics of scholarly and scientific journals. Scientometrics, 51(1), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mazzucato, M. (2015). A mission-oriented approach to building the entrepreneurial state. Technical report, Innovate UK. Technology Strategy Board.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, T., Baird, T., Littlefield, C., Kofinas, G., Chapin, F. S, III, & Redman, C. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Noyons, E., & van Raan, A. (1996). Actor analysis in neural network research: The position of Germany. Research Evaluation, 6(2), 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rhoten, D. (2004). Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition. Items and Issues, 5(1–2), 6–11.Google Scholar
  22. Rhoten, D., & Parker, A. (2004). Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path. Science, 306(5704), 2046–2046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosvall, M., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2008). Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(4), 1118–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sampat, B. N. (2012). Mission-oriented biomedical research at the NIH. Research Policy, 41(10), 1729–1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SCImago. (2007). SJR–SCImago journal and country rank. http://www.scimagojr.com. Retrieved Feb 02, 2017.
  26. Scopus. (2017). Scopus database. https://www.scopus.com/home.uri. Retrieved Feb 04, 2017.
  27. The World Bank. (2017). world development indicators. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators. Retrieved Feb 04, 2017.
  28. Vinkler, P. (2010). The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. West, J. D., Bergstrom, T. C., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2010). The Eigenfactor MetricsTM: A network approach to assessing scholarly journals. College & Research Libraries, 71(3), 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wright, B. D. (2012). Grand missions of agricultural innovation. Research Policy, 41(10), 1716–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhou, P., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2009). Regional analysis on Chinese scientific output. Scientometrics, 81(3), 839–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversidad Nacional de ColombiaBogotá, D.C.Colombia
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversidad Nacional de ColombiaBogotá, D.C.Colombia

Personalised recommendations