Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Evolutionary patterns of national disciplinary profiles in research: 1996–2015

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an empirical study of the evolutionary patterns of national disciplinary profiles in research using a dataset extracted from Scopus covering publications from 45 nations for the period 1996–2015. Measures of disciplinary specializations and statistical models are employed to examine the distribution of disciplinary specializations across nations, the patterns of structural changes in the world’s disciplinary profiles, and the evolutionary patterns of research profiles in individual nations. It is found that, while there has been a continuous process of convergence in national research profiles, nations differ greatly in their evolutionary patterns. Changes in national disciplinary profiles are decomposed into the regression effect and the mobility effect and both effects are analyzed for individual nations. The G7 and the BRICs countries are used as cases for the in-depth scrutiny. Policy implications based on the findings and directions for future research are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aksnes, D. W., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Sivertsen, G. (2014). The effect of booming countries on changes in the relative specialization index (RSI) on country level. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1391–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amendola, G., Guerrieri, P., & Padoan, P. C. (1998). International patterns of technological accumulation and trade. In D. Archibugi & J. Michie (Eds.), Trade, Growth and Technical Change (pp. 141–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bongioanni, I., Daraio, C., Moed, H. F., & Ruocco, G. (2014a). Disciplinary profiles and performance of research systems: A world comparison at the country level. In Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2014 Leiden “Context Counts: Pathways to Master Big and Little Data (pp. 50–63).

  • Bongioanni, I., Daraio, C., & Ruocco, G. (2014b). 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 

  • Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2016). Fundamental of financial management (14th ed., p. 29). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. (1989). Technological innovation and multinational corporations (pp. 16–48). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalum, B., Laursen, K., & Villumsen, G. (1998). Structural change in OECD export specialisation patterns: de-specialisation and ‘stickiness’. International Review of Applied Economics, 12(3), 423–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schlemmer, B. (2007). National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983–2003). An exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix. Scientometrics, 70(2), 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horlings, E. & van den Besselaar, P. (2013). Convergence in science growth and structure of worldwide scientific output, 1993–2008. Rathenau Instituut, Working Paper 1301.

  • Hu, X., & Rousseau, R. (2009). A comparative study of the difference in research performance in biomedical fields among selected Western and Asia Pacific countries. Scientometrics, 81(2), 475–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, C. M., & Inwood, G. J. (2014). Theories of policy change and a four-part theoretical framework for comparative analysis. In G. J. Inwood & C. M. Johns (Eds.), Commissions of inquiry and policy change: A comparative analysis, Chapter 2 (pp. 20–48). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K. (2015). Revealed comparative advantage and the alternatives as measures of international specialization. EurAsia Pacific Business Review, 5(1), 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (1988). The validity and reliability of evaluation of scholarly performance. In A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology, Chapter 7 (pp. 193–228). London: Elsevier Science Pub Co.

    Chapter  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 

  • Sala-i-Martin, X. X. (1996). The classical approach to convergence analysis. The Economic Journal, 106(437), 1019–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., & Braun, T. (1989). Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 16(1–6), 3–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCImago. (2007). SJR – SCImago Journal & Country Rank. 20 August 2016. http://www.scimagojr.com.

  • Scopus. (2016). Content Coverage Guide, January 2016. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.

  • Tijssen, R. J. W. (1992). Cartography of science: Scientometric mapping with multidimensional scaling methods. Leiden: DSWO Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Descriptive versus evaluative bibliometrics. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 373–388). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. (2004). Measuring science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19–48). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. (2006). Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: Research group indicator distributions and correlations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 408–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, F. J. (2014). Advances in bibliometric analysis: Research performance assessment and science mapping. In W. Blockmans, L. Engwall, & D. Weaire (Eds.), Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance (Vol C) (pp. 17–28). Portland: Portland publishers.

    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(2), 497–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Q., Rousseau, R., Yang, L., Yue, T., & Yang, G. (2012). A general framework for describing diversity within systems and similarity between systems with applications in informetrics. Scientometrics, 93(3), 787–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The author is grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and constructive suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business and Public Administration, Eastern Washington University, 668 N. Riverpoint Blvd., Spokane, WA, 99202, USA

    Ning Li

Authors
  1. Ning Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ning Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, N. Evolutionary patterns of national disciplinary profiles in research: 1996–2015. Scientometrics 111, 493–520 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2259-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2259-4

Keywords