Geographical Trends in Research: A Preliminary Analysis on Authors’ Affiliations

  • Andrea MannocciEmail author
  • Francesco Osborne
  • Enrico Motta
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10959)


In the last decade, research literature reached an enormous volume with an unprecedented current annual increase of 1.5 million new publications. As research gets ever more global and new countries and institutions, either from academia or corporate environment, start to contribute with their share, it is important to monitor this complex scenario and understand its dynamics.

We present a study on a conference proceedings dataset extracted from Springer Nature Scigraph that illustrates insightful geographical trends and highlights the unbalanced growth of competitive research institutions worldwide. Results emerged from our micro and macro analysis show that the distributions among countries of institutions and papers follow a power law, and thus very few countries keep producing most of the papers accepted by high-tier conferences. In addition, we found that the annual and overall turnover rate of the top 5, 10 and 25 countries is extremely low, suggesting a very static landscape in which new entries struggle to emerge. Finally, we highlight the presence of an increasing gap between the number of institutions initiating and overseeing research endeavours (i.e. first and last authors’ affiliations) and the total number of institutions participating in research. As a consequence of our analysis, the paper also discusses our experience in working with affiliations: an utterly simple matter at first glance, that is instead revealed to be a complex research and technical challenge yet far from being solved.


Scholarly knowledge Affiliations Conferences Scientometrics Research SciGraph 



We would like to thank the SciGraph team, especially Dr. Michele Pasin, whose work and prompt response made this study possible.


  1. 1.
    Börner, K., Penumarthy, S.: Spatio-temporal information production and consumption of major US research institutions. In: Proceedings of ISSI Volume 1 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bornmann, L., Mutz, R.: Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66(11), 2215–2222 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carvalho, R., Batty, M.: The geography of scientific productivity: scaling in US computer science. J. Stat. Mech.: Theor. Exp. 2006(10), P10012 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Egghe, L.: Power Laws in the Information Production Process: Lotkaian Informetrics. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falagas, M.E., Karavasiou, A.I., Bliziotis, I.A.: A bibliometric analysis of global trends of research productivity in tropical medicine. Acta Trop. 99(2–3), 155–159 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Falagas, M.E., Michalopoulos, A.S., Bliziotis, I.A., Soteriades, E.S.: A bibliometric analysis by geographic area of published research in several biomedical fields, 1995–2003. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 175(11), 1389–1390 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frenken, K., Hardeman, S., Hoekman, J.: Spatial scientometrics: towards a cumulative research program. J. Inf. 3(3), 222–232 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hung, J.L.: Trends of e-learning research from 2000 to 2008: use of text mining and bibliometrics. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 43(1), 5–16 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jadidi, M., Karimi, F., Lietz, H., Wagner, C.: Gender disparities in science? Dropout, productivity, collaborations and success of male and female computer scientists. Adv. Complex Syst. 21(03n04), 1750011 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    King, D.A.: The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430, 311 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ley, M.: DBLP: some lessons learned. Proc. VLDB Endow. 2(2), 1493–1500 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    May, R.M.: The scientific wealth of nations. Science 275(5301), 793–796 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monroe-White, T., Woodson, T.S.: Inequalities in scholarly knowledge: public value failures and their impact on global science. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 8(2), 178–186 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morello, L., Reardon, S.: Others: scientists struggle with Trump immigration ban. Nature 542(7639), 13–14 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pan, R.K., Kaski, K., Fortunato, S.: World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science. Sci. Rep. 2, 902 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pareto, V., Page, A.N.: Translation of Manuale di economia politica (Manual of Political Economy). AM Kelley, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pearson, K.: Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. III. Regression, heredity, and panmixia. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Contain. Pap. Math. Phys. Charact. 187, 253–318 (1896)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Petersen, A.M., et al.: Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111(43), 15316–15321 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sarigöl, E., Pfitzner, R., Scholtes, I., Garas, A., Schweitzer, F.: Predicting scientific success based on coauthorship networks. EPJ Data Sci. 3(1), 9 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C.R.: Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PloS One 8(5), e64841 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Verleysen, F.T., Weeren, A.: Clustering by publication patterns of senior authors in the social sciences and humanities. J. Inf. 10(1), 254–272 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilkinson, M.D., et al.: The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3 (2016).
  23. 23.
    Woodson, T.S.: Research inequality in nanomedicine. J. Bus. Chem. 9(3), 133–146 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Mannocci
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francesco Osborne
    • 1
  • Enrico Motta
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media InstituteThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations