Advertisement

Publishing Research Quarterly

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 421–432 | Cite as

The Publication Success of 102 Nations in Scopus and the Performance of Their Scopus-Indexed Journals

  • Mohammadamin ErfanmaneshEmail author
  • Muzammil Tahira
  • A. Abrizah
Article

Abstract

Over the years, the number of journals indexed in Scopus has increased, although it varies significantly between countries. The increasing proportion of international journals of a country provides new venues for papers from that country to be seen by other researchers worldwide. In this work, we evaluate the relationship of a country’s scientific performance or publication success with both its journals’ quantity and quality. The specific objective of the study is to identify the relationship between the country’s publication success and the quantity and quality of those country’s journals indexed in Scopus during 2005–2014. The publication success of 102 individual countries, measured by their scientific productivity, impact and collaboration indicators, the quantity of country’s Scopus-indexed journals in 2014 (a total of 22,581 journals) as well as the quantity of its journals were investigated. Scopus-indexed journals are predominantly from Western Europe (48.9%) and North America (27.7%), with the United States and the United Kingdom dominate with a total 51%. The contribution from the peripheral countries is comparatively small, however there are a good number of contributions from the South-East Asian countries. Estonia is the fastest growing country in terms of having indexed journals in Scopus, following by Iran and Malaysia. Among the studied indices, it was found that publication success (total publications and total citations) of 102 countries are strongly correlated with quantity (number of indexed journals and number of documents published in indexed journals) and quality (citations per paper, SJR, h-index, CiteScore and SNIP) indicators of country’s journals. We can conclude that the scientific productivity of a country depend critically on the number of journals indexed from that country in citation databases. The study provides a context with which the relative success of publications can be assessed, yielding new insights into the scientific impact of individual countries and the performance of journals that they published.

Keywords

Scholarly publications Scopus-indexed journals Journal performance Publication success 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The work of A. Abrizah was supported by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (HIR-MOHE) UM.C/HIR/MOHE/FCSIT/11. Conceived the paper: AA. Designed the experiments: MAE, AA. Performed the experiments: MAE, MT. Analyzed the data: MT, AA. Contributed materials/analysis tools: MAE, MT. Wrote the paper: MAE, MT, AA. Data Collection: MAE.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrizah A, Zainab AN, Edzan NN, Koh AP. Citation performance of Malaysian scholarly journals in the Web of Science, 2006–2010. Ser Rev. 2013;39(1):47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basu A. Does a country’s scientific productivity depend critically on the number of country journals indexed? Scientometrics. 2010;82(3):507–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L, Walch-Solimena C, Ettl C. Mapping excellence in the geography of science: an approach based on Scopus data. J Inform. 2011;5(4):537–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. Macro-indicators of citation impacts of six prolific countries: incites data and the statistical significance of trends. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(2):e56768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cole S, Phelan T. The scientific productivity of nations. Minerva. 1999;37(1):1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erfanmanesh M, Nojavan F. Qualitative and quantitative status and international visibility of Iranian journals indexed in journal citation reports. Iran J Inf Process Manag. 2016;32(1):51–73.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erfanmanesh, M. Status and quality of open access journals in Scopus. Collect Build. 2017. doi: 10.1108/CB-02-2017-0007.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    He ZL, Geng XS, Campbell-Hunt C. Research collaboration and research output: a longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university. Res Policy. 2009;38(2):306–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    King DA. The scientific impact of nations. Nature. 2004;430:311–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nejati A, Jenab SMH. A two-dimensional approach to evaluate the scientific production of countries (case study: the basic sciences). Scientometric. 2010;84(2):357–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Persson O, Glänzel W, Danell R. Inflationary bibliometric values: the role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics. 2004;60(3):421–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith MJ, Weinberger C, Bruna EM, Allesina S. The scientific impact of nations: journal placement and citation performance. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):e109195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vinkler P. The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Oxford: Chandos Publishing; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Waltman L, Calero-Medina C, Kosten J, Noyons ECM, Tijssen RJW, Van Eck NJ, Wouters P. The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: data collection, indicators, and interpretation. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2012;63(12):2419–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Muzammil Tahira
    • 2
  • A. Abrizah
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Psychology and Educational SciencesUniversity of IsfahanIsfahanIran
  2. 2.University of EducationLahorePakistan
  3. 3.Department of Library & Information Science, Faculty of Computer Science & Information TechnologyUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  4. 4.Malaysian Citation CentreMinistry of Higher EducationPutrajayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations