Spatial Scientometrics and Scholarly Impact: A Review of Recent Studies, Tools, and Methods

  • Koen FrenkenEmail author
  • Jarno Hoekman


Previously, we proposed a research program to analyze spatial aspects of the science system which we called “spatial scientometrics” (Frenken, Hardeman, & Hoekman, 2009). The aim of this chapter is to systematically review recent (post-2008) contributions to spatial scientometrics on the basis of a standardized literature search. We focus our review on contributions addressing spatial aspects of scholarly impact, particularly, the spatial distribution of publication and citation impact, and the effect of spatial biases in collaboration and mobility on citation impact. We also discuss recent dedicated tools and methods for analysis and visualization of spatial scientometric data. We end with reflections about future research avenues.


Gross Domestic Product International Collaboration Citation Count Citation Rate Citation Impact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The relationship between scientists’ research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research. Scientometrics, 86(3), 629–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Ferrándiz, E., & León, M. D. (2014). Regional scientific production and specialization in Europe: the role of HERD. European Planning Studies, 22(5), 1–26. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.752439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011a). High-and low-impact citation measures: empirical applications. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 122–145. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011b). The measurement of low-and high-impact in citation distributions: Technical results. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 48–63. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011c). Average-based versus high-and low-impact indicators for the evaluation of scientific distributions. Research Evaluation, 20(4), 325–339. doi: 10.3152/095820211X13164389670310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Almeida, J. A. S., Pais, A. A. C. C., & Formosinho, S. J. (2009). Science indicators and science patterns in Europe. Journal of Informetrics, 3(2), 134–142. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Autant‐Bernard, C., Billand, P., Frachisse, D., & Massard, N. (2007). Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 495–519. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00132.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bajerski, A. (2011). The role of French, German and Spanish journals in scientific communication in international geography. Area, 43(3), 305–313. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00989.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bański, J., & Ferenc, M. (2013). “International” or “Anglo-American” journals of geography? Geoforum, 45, 285–295. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.11.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barnes, T. J. (2001). ‘In the beginning was economic geography’–a science studies approach to disciplinary history. Progress in Human Geography, 25(4), 521–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Basu, A. (2010). Does a country’s scientific ‘productivity’ depend critically on the number of country journals indexed? Scientometrics, 82(3), 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? A new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 1954–1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Which are the best performing regions in information science in terms of highly cited papers? Some improvements of our previous mapping approaches. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 336–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., Walch-Solimena, C., & Ettl, C. (2011). Mapping excellence in the geography of science: An approach based on Scopus data. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bornmann, L., Stefaner, M., de Moya Anegón, F., & Mutz, R. (2014a). Ranking and mapping of universities and research-focused institutions worldwide based on highly-cited papers: A visualisation of results from multi-level models. Online Information Review, 38(1), 43–58.Google Scholar
  16. Bornmann, L., Stefaner, M., de Moya Anegon, F., & Mutz, R. (2014b). What is the effect of country-specific characteristics on the research performance of scientific institutions? Using multi-level statistical models to rank and map universities and research-focused institutions worldwide. arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.2866.Google Scholar
  17. Bornmann, L., & Waltman, L. (2011). The detection of “hot regions” in the geography of science—a visualization approach by using density maps. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 547–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Boschma, R., Heimeriks, G., & Balland, P. A. (2014). Scientific knowledge dynamics and relatedness in biotech cities. Research Policy, 43(1), 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Braun, J. D. (2012). Effects of war on scientific production: mathematics in Croatia from 1968 to 2008. Scientometrics, 93(3), 931–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2009). Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: An anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography, 9, 439–468. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbp008.Google Scholar
  21. Calver, M., Wardell-Johnson, G., Bradley, S., & Taplin, R. (2010). What makes a journal international? A case study using conservation biology journals. Scientometrics, 85(2), 387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cho, C. C., Hu, M. W., & Liu, M. C. (2010). Improvements in productivity based on co-authorship: a case study of published articles in China. Scientometrics, 85(2), 463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Collazo-Reyes, F. (2014). Growth of the number of indexed journals of Latin America and the Caribbean: the effect on the impact of each country. Scientometrics, 98(1), 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Commission of the European Communities. (1993). White paper on growth, competitiveness and employment. Brussels: COM(93) 700 final.Google Scholar
  25. D’Angelo, C. A., Giuffrida, C., & Abramo, G. (2011). A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large‐scale research assessments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013a). Determinants of research citation impact in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1055–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2013b). Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 861–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M. S. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35(10), 1450–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eisend, M., & Schmidt, S. (2014). The influence of knowledge-based resources and business scholars’ internationalization strategies on research performance. Research Policy, 43(1), 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90(3), 891–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Finnegan, D. A. (2008). The spatial turn: Geographical approaches in the history of science. Journal of the History of Biology, 41(2), 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frenken, K. (2010). Geography of scientific knowledge: A proximity approach. Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies (ECIS) working paper series 10-01. Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies (ECIS). Retrieved from
  33. Frenken, K., Hardeman, S., & Hoekman, J. (2009). Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative research program. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Frenken, K., Hölzl, W., & Vor, F. D. (2005). The citation impact of research collaborations: the case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988–2002). Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Frenken, K., Ponds, R., & Van Oort, F. (2010). The citation impact of research collaboration in science‐based industries: A spatial‐institutional analysis. Papers in Regional Science, 89(2), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grossetti, M., Eckert, D., Gingras, Y., Jégou, L., Larivière, V., & Milard, B. (2013, November). Cities and the geographical deconcentration of scientific activity: A multilevel analysis of publications (1987–2007). Urban Studies, 0042098013506047.Google Scholar
  38. Grossetti, M., Milard, B., & Losego, P. (2009). La territorialisation comme contrepoint à l'internationalisation des activités scientifiques.L’internationalisation des systèmes de recherche en action. Les cas français et suisse. Retrieved from
  39. He, Z. L. (2009). International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2151–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. He, T., & Liu, W. (2009). The internationalization of Chinese scientific journals: A quantitative comparison of three chemical journals from China, England and Japan. Scientometrics, 80(3), 583–593.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Heimeriks, G., & Boschma, R. (2014). The path- and place-dependent nature of scientific knowledge production in biotech 1986–2008. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(2), 339–364. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbs052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Herranz, N., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2013). The end of the ‘European Paradox’. Scientometrics, 95(1), 453–464. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0865-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., de Zeeuw, D., & Heerspink, H. L. (2012). The geographical distribution of leadership in globalized clinical trials. PLoS One, 7(10), e45984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy, 39(5), 662–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hoekman, J., Scherngell, T., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. (2013). Acquisition of European research funds and its effect on international scientific collaboration. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(1), 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Huang, M. H., Chang, H. W., & Chen, D. Z. (2012). The trend of concentration in scientific research and technological innovation: A reduction of the predominant role of the US in world research & technology. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 457–468.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. Huffman, M. D., Baldridge, A., Bloomfield, G. S., Colantonio, L. D., Prabhakaran, P., Ajay, V. S., … & Prabhakaran, D. (2013). Global cardiovascular research output, citations, and collaborations: A time-trend, bibliometric analysis (1999–2008). PloS One, 8(12), e83440.Google Scholar
  48. Jacsó, P. (2011). Interpretations and misinterpretations of scientometric data in the report of the Royal Society about the scientific landscape in 2011. Online Information Review, 35(4), 669–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jonkers, K., & Cruz-Castro, L. (2013). Research upon return: The effect of international mobility on scientific ties, production and impact. Research Policy, 42(8), 1366–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kao, C. (2009). The authorship and internationality of industrial engineering journals. Scientometrics, 81(1), 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kato, M., & Ando, A. (2013). The relationship between research performance and international collaboration in chemistry. Scientometrics, 97(3), 535–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kirchik, O., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2012). Changes in publication languages and citation practices and their effect on the scientific impact of Russian science (1993–2010). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1411–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lancho Barrantes, B. S., Bote, G., Vicente, P., Rodríguez, Z. C., & de Moya Anegón, F. (2012). Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee, K., Brownstein, J. S., Mills, R. G., & Kohane, I. S. (2010). Does collocation inform the impact of collaboration? PLoS One, 5(12), e14279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Levy, R., & Jégou, L. (2013). Diversity and location of knowledge production in small cities in France. City, Culture and Society, 4(4), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levy, R., Sibertin-Blanc, M., & Jégou, L. (2013). La production scientifique universitaire dans les villes françaises petites et moyennes (1980–2009). M@ ppemonde, (110 (2013/2))Google Scholar
  57. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). World shares of publications of the USA, EU-27, and China compared and predicted using the new Web of Science interface versus Scopus. El profesional de la información, 21(1), 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Leydesdorff, L., & Persson, O. (2010). Mapping the geography of science: Distribution patterns and networks of relations among cities and institutes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1622–1634.Google Scholar
  59. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Local emergence and global diffusion of research technologies: An exploration of patterns of network formation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(5), 846–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Livingstone, D. N. (2010). Putting science in its place: Geographies of scientific knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Maggioni, M. A., & Uberti, T. E. (2009). Knowledge networks across Europe: Which distance matters? The Annals of Regional Science, 43(3), 691–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Magnone, E. (2012). An analysis for estimating the short-term effects of Japan’s triple disaster on progress in materials science. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12(2), 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Matthiessen, C. W., & Schwarz, A. W. (2010). World cities of scientific knowledge: Systems, networks and potential dynamics. An analysis based on bibliometric indicators. Urban Studies, 47(9), 1879–1897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Meo, S. A., Al Masri, A. A., Usmani, A. M., Memon, A. N., & Zaidi, S. Z. (2013). Impact of GDP, spending on R&D, number of universities and scientific journals on research publications among Asian countries. PLoS One, 8(6), e66449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Meusburger, P., Livingstone, D. N., & Jöns, H. (2010). Geographies of science. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Miguel, S., Moya-Anegón, F., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2010). The impact of the socio-economic crisis of 2001 on the scientific system of Argentina from the scientometric perspective. Scientometrics, 85(2), 495–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Moiwo, J. P., & Tao, F. (2013). The changing dynamics in citation index publication position China in a race with the USA for global leadership. Scientometrics, 95(3), 1031–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Morillo, F., & De Filippo, D. (2009). Descentralización de la actividad científica. El papel determinante de las regiones centrales: el caso de Madrid. Revista española de documentación científica, 32(3), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nomaler, Ö., Frenken, K., & Heimeriks, G. (2013). Do more distant collaborations have more citation impact? Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 966–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Onodera, N., Iwasawa, M., Midorikawa, N., Yoshikane, F., Amano, K., Ootani, Y., … & Yamazaki, S. (2011). A method for eliminating articles by homonymous authors from the large number of articles retrieved by author search. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(4), 677–690.Google Scholar
  72. Orduña-Malea, E., Ontalba-Ruipérez, J. A., & Serrano-Cobos, J. (2010). Análisis bibliométrico de la producción y colaboración científica en Oriente Próximo (1998–2007). Investigación bibliotecológica, 24(51), 69–94.Google Scholar
  73. Pasgaard, M., & Strange, N. (2013). A quantitative analysis of the causes of the global climate change research distribution. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1684–1693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Persson, O., & Ellegård, K. (2012). Torsten Hägerstrand in the citation time web. The Professional Geographer, 64(2), 250–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rodrigues, R. S., & Abadal, E. (2014). Ibero-American journals in Scopus and Web of Science. Learned Publishing, 27(1), 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  77. Sandström, U. (2009). Combining curriculum vitae and bibliometric analysis: Mobility, gender and research performance. Research Evaluation, 18(2), 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Scherngell, T. (Ed.). (2014). The geography of networks and R&D collaborations. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  79. Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. J. (2009). Spatial interaction modelling of cross‐region R&D collaborations: Empirical evidence from the 5th EU framework programme. Papers in Regional Science, 88(3), 531–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schubert, T., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010). Can the centre–periphery model explain patterns of international scientific collaboration among threshold and industrialised countries? The case of South Africa and Germany. Scientometrics, 83(1), 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sebestyén, T., & Varga, A. (2013). Research productivity and the quality of interregional knowledge networks. The Annals of Regional Science, 51(1), 155–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shapin, S. (1998). Placing the view from nowhere: historical and sociological problems in the location of science. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 23(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shelton, R. D., Foland, P., & Gorelskyy, R. (2009). Do new SCI journals have a different national bias? Scientometrics, 79(2), 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sin, S. C. J. (2011). International coauthorship and citation impact: A bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980–2008. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1770–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Smalheiser, N. R., & Torvik, V. I. (2009). Author name disambiguation. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2010). Regional development and interregional collaboration in the growth of nanotechnology research in China. Scientometrics, 86(2), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tang, L., & Walsh, J. P. (2010). Bibliometric fingerprints: Name disambiguation based on approximate structure equivalence of cognitive maps. Scientometrics, 84(3), 763–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Trippl, M. (2013). Scientific mobility and knowledge transfer at the interregional and intraregional level. Regional Studies, 47(10), 1653–1667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Van Noorden, R. (2010). Cities: Building the best cities for science. Nature, 467(7318), 906–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Waltman, L., Tijssen, R. J., & Eck, N. J. V. (2011). Globalisation of science in kilometres. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 574–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wang, J., Berzins, K., Hicks, D., Melkers, J., Xiao, F., & Pinheiro, D. (2012). A boosted-trees method for name disambiguation. Scientometrics, 93(2), 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wu, J., & Ding, X. H. (2013). Author name disambiguation in scientific collaboration and mobility cases. Scientometrics, 96(3), 683–697.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  94. Zubieta, A. F. (2009). Recognition and weak ties: Is there a positive effect of postdoctoral position on academic performance and career development? Research Evaluation, 18(2), 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Innovation Studies, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Innovation Studies, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations