Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes, using Web of Science publications and two time periods (2004–2006 and 2014–2016), the disciplinary structures in the three prestigious journals Nature, Science and PNAS, compared with two baselines: Non-NSP_Multi (multidisciplinary publications that have other source journals than Nature, Science and PNAS), and Non-Multi (publications assigned to other categories than Multidisciplinary). We analyze the profiles at two levels, journal and country. The results for the journal level show that for Nature and Science, the publications are considerably less concentrated to certain disciplines compared to PNAS. Biology is the dominant discipline for all the three journals. Nature and Science have similar publication shares in Medicine, Geosciences, Physics, Space science, and Chemistry. The publications of PNAS are highly concentrated to two disciplines: Biology and Medicine. Compared with Non-NSP_Multi and Non-Multi, the shares of Biology in NSP journals are higher, whereas the share of Medicine is lower. At the country level, 14 countries are included, among them the five BRICS countries. With respect to the NSP journals, the emphasis disciplines (in terms of world share of publications) of most countries other than USA are the disciplines in which USA has its weakest performance. The disciplinary structures of USA and of most of the other studied countries therefore tend to be different. Regarding Non-NSP_Multi and Non-Multi, the shapes of the disciplinary structures of the 14 countries can be roughly grouped into three groups, while there are more types of shapes for the countries in the NSP journals. For all five units of analysis, the discipline structures of most countries generally change only slightly between different time periods. The structures of some BRICS countries, however, change to a relatively large extent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.nature.com/nature/about/.

  2. http://www.sciencemag.org/about/mission-and-scope?_ga=2.115635599.881174117.1524540131-1359036387.1524540131.

  3. http://www.pnas.org/page/authors/purpose-scope.

  4. For editorial process/policy, publication frequency, etc., we refer the reader to the web sites of the three journals.

  5. Bibmet does not include the ESI scheme.

References

  • Aksnes, D. W., Leeuwen, T. N. V., & Sivertsen, G. (2014). The effect of booming countries on changes in the relative specialization index (rsi) on country level. Scientometrics, 101, 1391–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bongioanni, I., Daraio, C., & Ruocco, G. (2014). A quantitative measure to compare the disciplinary profiles of research systems and their evolution over time. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 710–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börner, K., Klavans, R., Patek, M., Zoss, A. M., Biberstine, J. R., Light, R. P., et al. (2012). Design and update of a classification system: The UCSD map of science. PLoS ONE, 7(7), e39464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1989). National publication patterns and citation impact in the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science. Scientometrics, 17(1–2), 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, J. L., Ahlgren, P., Yang, L. Y., & Yue, T. (2016). Document type profiles in Nature, Science and PNAS: Journal and country level. Journal of Data and Information Science, 1(3), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, J. L., & Rousseau, R. (2015). Do Chinese and American contributions in top journals have an equal citation potential? Chinese Journal of Library and Information Science, 8(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Carpintero, E., Granadino, B., & Plaza, L. M. (2010). The representation of nationalities on the editorial boards of international journals and the promotion of the scientific output of the same countries. Scientometrics, 84(3), 799–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2000). Science in Scandinavia: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 48(2), 121–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., & Meyer, M. (2008). ‘Triad’ or ‘tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world. Scientometrics, 74(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., & Czerwon, J. (1999a). An Item-by-item subject classification of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals using reference analysis. Scientometrics, 44(3), 427–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Schoepflin, U., & Czerwon, J. (1999b). An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in journals covered by the SSCI database using reference analysis. Scientometrics, 46(3), 431–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W., & Giroud, A. (2014). The competitive advantage of nations: An application to academia. Journal of Informetrics, 8, 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurajda, S., Kozubek, S., Mu¨nich, D., & Sˇkoda, S. (2017). Scientific publication performance in post-communist countries: Still lagging far behind. Scientometrics, 112(1), 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaneiwa, K., Adachi, J., Aoki, M., Masuda, T., Midorikawa, N., Tanimura, A., et al. (1988). A comparison between the journals Nature and Science. Scientometrics, 13(3–4), 125–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2006). Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 251–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2009). Toward a consensus map of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 455–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, J., Radosevic, S., & Ircha, D. (1999). History matters: The inherited disciplinary structure of the post-communist science in countries of central and Eastern Europe and its restructuring. Scientometrics, 45(1), 137–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8), 707–710.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Carley, S., & Rafols, I. (2013). Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories. Scientometrics, 94(2), 589–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, F., Miao, Y., & Ding, J. (2015). Tracking the development of disciplinary structure in China’s top research universities (1998–2013). Research Evaluation, 24(3), 312–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. (2017). Evolutionary patterns of national disciplinary profiles in research: 1996–2015. Scientometrics, 111, 493–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moya-Anegón, F., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2013). Worldwide topology of the scientific subject profile: A macro approach in the country level. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e83222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moya-Anegón, S. G., Vargas-Quesada, B., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Corera-Álvarez, E., Munoz-Fernández, F. J., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2007). Visualizing the marrow of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2167–2179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moya-Anegón, F., Vargas-Quesada, B., Herrero-Solana, V., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Corera-Álvarez, E., & Munoz-Fernández, F. J. (2004). A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories. Scientometrics, 61(1), 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). Main science and technology indicators volume 2017 Issue 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/msti-v2017-2-en.

  • Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Roessner, D. J., & Heberger, A. E. (2008). How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research Evaluation, 17(4), 273–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radosevic, S., & Yoruk, E. (2014). Are there global shifts in the world science base? Analysing the catching up and falling behind of world regions. Scientometrics, 101(3), 1897–1924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., Porter, A. L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1871–1887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R., & Ding, J. L. (2016). Does international collaboration yield a higher citation potential for US scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary Journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(4), 1009–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salton, G., & McGill, M. J. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. (2017). The global competitiveness report 2016–2017. Geneva: World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2017-2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017%E2%80%932018.pdf.

  • Van den Besselaar, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2001). Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary: Concepts and indicators. In M. Davis & C. S. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 705–716). Sydney: University of New South-Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (2018). Structure of the scientific research and science policy. Scientometrics, 114(2), 737–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378–2392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q. (2016). Studies in the dynamics of science: Exploring emergence, classification, and interdisciplinarity. Stockholm: KTH Royal institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. W., Mao, W. L., Xu, S. M., & Zhang, C. B. (2014). Usage history of scientific literature: Nature metrics and metrics of Nature publications. Scientometrics, 98, 1923–1933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, C. Y. (2013). On a path to creative destruction: science, technology and science-based technological trajectories of Japan and South Korea. Scientometrics, 96(1), 323–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Z., Li, M., Li, J., Duan, X., & Ouyang, Z. (2018). Feature analysis of multidisciplinary scientific collaboration patterns based on pnas. EPJ Data Science, 7, 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L. Y., Yue, T., Ding, J. L., & Han, T. (2012). A comparison of disciplinary structure in science between the G7 and the BRIC countries by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 93, 497–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Glanzel, W. (2010). In-depth analysis on China’s international cooperation in science. Scientometrics, 82(3), 597–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ronald Rousseau for valuable comments. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for suggestions that helped us to improve the paper considerably. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. L1422060).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Jielan Ding, Per Ahlgren, Liying Yang & Ting Yue

  2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 19A Yuquan Road, Beijing, 100049, China

    Jielan Ding & Ting Yue

  3. School of Education and Communication in Engineering Sciences (ECE), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 10044, Sweden

    Per Ahlgren

Authors
  1. Jielan Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Per Ahlgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liying Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ting Yue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liying Yang.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Table 6 Number of publications in Nature, Science and PNAS by discipline and time period
Full size table
Table 7 Number of publications in Non-NSP_Multi and Non-Multi by discipline and time period
Full size table
Table 8 Number of publication fractions and ranks of the 14 countries in the time period 2004-2006 by unit of analysis/NSP
Full size table
Table 9 Similarity values (cosine measure) between the 14 countries in Nature
Full size table
Table 10 Similarity values (cosine measure) between the 14 countries in Science
Full size table
Table 11 Similarity values (cosine measure) between the 14 countries in PNAS
Full size table
Table 12 Similarity values (cosine measure) between the 14 countries in Non-NSP_Multi
Full size table
Table 13 Similarity values (cosine measure) between the 14 countries in Non-Multi
Full size table
Table 14 Differences within countries between NSP journals and the two baselines with respect to world share of publications. Only main disciplines considered (cf. last paragraph of Sect. 3.2). Publication period = 2014–2016
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ding, J., Ahlgren, P., Yang, L. et al. Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels. Scientometrics 116, 1817–1852 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2812-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2812-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation