Advertisement

Science in Mexico: a bibliometric analysis

  • Bárbara S. Lancho-BarrantesEmail author
  • Francisco J. Cantú-Ortiz
Article
  • 93 Downloads

Abstract

We can find several studies analyzing the scientific production of Latin American countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, Peru, Venezuela etc throughout the scientific literature. There are many papers focusing on scientific disciplines, institutions and journals from these countries. However, to the best of our knowledge, we have not found any article that analyzes the scientific production of Mexico, global or recent and with Scopus as a specific database, nor the production in collaboration with its strategic countries in science and technology. For this reason, the present work intends to give Mexico the prominence it deserves by studying its productivity in research by using a bibliometric approach. To perform this study, the international bibliographic database Scopus was used within a ten year publication window from 2007 to 2016. With this sample, we analyzed the production in general, the scientific production in scientific disciplines, and production in collaboration with its strategic countries in science and technology, without forgetting the variables of the citations received from Scival as a parameter of impact on research. This study aims to serve as a precedent for later studies and contribute as a reference of Mexican production to the scientific community and as a tool to elaboration of national public policy in science and technology.

Keywords

Scientific production Scientific production by disciplines Scientific collaboration Strategic partners of Mexico Citations received Mexico 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Tecnologico de Monterrey, which supported this study through the Intelligent Systems Group and Elsevier to develop this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aksnes, D. W., Sivertsen, G., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wendt, K. K. (2017). Measuring the productivity of national R&D systems: Challenges in cross-national comparisons of R&D input and publication output indicators. Science and Public Policy, 44(2), 246–258.Google Scholar
  2. Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Moya Anegon, F. (2010). Challenges in the study of Cuban scientific output. Scientometrics, 83(3), 723–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arvantis, R., Russell, J. M., & Rosas, A. Ma. (1996). Experiences with the national citation reports database for measuring national performance: The case of Mexico. Scientometrics, 35(2), 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bucheli, V., Díaz, A., Calderon, J. P., Lemoine, P., Valdivia, J. A., Villaveces, J. L., et al. (2012). Growth of scientific production in colombian universities: An intellectual capital-based approach. Scientometrics, 91(2), 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CAICYT-CONICET. (2007). Evolution of the argentina scientific production in science citation index 1990–2004. Revista argentina de Endocrinologia y Metabolismo, 44(1), 25–32.Google Scholar
  6. Castillo-Pérez, J. J., Muñoz-Valera, L., García-Gómez, F., & Mejía-Aranguré, J. M. (2015). Análisis bibliométrico de la producción científica sobre la influenza en México, 2000–2012. Revista Médica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 53(3), 294–301.Google Scholar
  7. Cole, S., & Phelan, T. J. (1999). The scientific productivity of nations. Minerva, 37(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CONACYT. (2016). National general report of science, technology and innovation. Retrieved from http://www.siicyt.gob.mx/index.php/transparencia/informes-conacyt/informe-general-del-estado-de-la-ciencia-tecnologia-e-innovacion/informe-general-2016. Accessed 05 July 2018.
  9. CONACYT. (2018). National general report of science, technology and innovation. http://www.siicyt.gob.mx/index.php/transparencia/informes-conacyt/informe-de-actividades/4708-inf-actividades-2018-ene-mzo/file. Accessed 08 October 2018.
  10. Da Luz, M., Marques-Portella, C., Mendlowicz, M., Gleiser, S., Silva-Freire, C., & Figueira, I. (2008). Institutional h-index: The performance of a new metric in the evaluation of Brazilian Psychiatric Post-graduation Programs. Scientometrics, 77(2), 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., Muñoz-Fernández, F. J., González-Molina, A., et al. (2007). Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach. Scientometrics, 73(1), 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Solla Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2013). Impact of funding on scientific output and collaboration: A survey of literature. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 12(4), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2016). How to boost scientific production? A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors. Scientometrics, 106(3), 1093–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erfanian, E., & Neto, A. B. F. (2017). Scientific output: labor or capital intensive? An analysis for selected countries. Scientometrics, 112(1), 461–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernandez, F., & Baker, D. (2017). Science production in the United States: An unexpected synergy between mass higher education and the super research University. In J. J. W. Powell, D. P. Baker, & F. Fernandez (Eds.), The century of science (international perspectives on education and society) (Vol. 33, pp. 85–111). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  17. Franco-Paredes, K., Diaz-Resendiz, F., Pineda-Lozano, J. E., & Hidalgo Rasmussen, C. A. (2016). Bibliometric analysis of scientific production of Mexican Journal of Eating Disorders, 2010–2014. Revista Mexicana de Trastornos Alimentarios, 7(1), 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frixione, E., Ruiz-Zamarripa, L., & Hernández, G. (2016). Assessing individual intellectual output in scientific research: Mexico’s national system for evaluating scholars performance in the humanities and the behavioral sciences. PLoSONE, 11(5), e0155732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glänzel, W. (2018). Bibliometrics. A concise introduction to bibliometrics & its history. https://www.ecoom.be/en/research/bibliometrics. Accessed 30 October 2018.
  20. Hernandez-Garcia, Y. I., Chamizo, J. A., Kleiche-Dray, M., & Russell, J. (2016). The Scientific impact of mexican steroid research 1935–1965: A bibliometric and historiographic analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 67(5), 1245–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrera-Vallejera, D., Sánchez-Perdomo, R., Rosario-Sierra, M., & Rodríguez-Sánchez, Y. (2017). Scientometrics study of scientific activity in Cuba in the fields of natural sciences and engineering, mathematics and computer science. Investigación Bibliotecológica, 31(72), 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lima, M., Liberman, S., & Russell, J. M. (2005). Scientific group cohesiveness at the National University of Mexico. Scientometrics, 64(1), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monge-Nájera, J., & Ho, Y. (2018). Guatemala articles in the science citation index expanded: Bibliometry of subjects, collaboration, institutions and authors. Revista de Biologia Tropical, 66(1), 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moya-Anegon, F., & Herrero-Solana, V. (1999). Science in America Latina: A comparison of bibliometric and scientific-technical indicators. Scientometrics, 46(2), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mueller, C. E. (2016). Accurate forecast of countries’ research output by macro-level indicators. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1307–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nalimov, V., & Mulchenko, Z. M. (1969). Naukometrija: Izuchenije razvitijanauki kak Informacinnege process. M: Nauka, 192.Google Scholar
  27. OECD. (2017). Scientometrics-science, technology and industry scoreboard 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/scientometrics.htm. Accessed 30 October 2018.
  28. OECD. (2018). Science and innovation: Country notes: Mexico. http://www.oecd.org/mexico/41559276.pdf. Accessed 01 November 2018.
  29. OECD & SCImago Research Group (CSIC). (2016). Compendium of bibliometric science indicators. OECD, Paris. http://oe.cd/scientometrics. Accessed 30 October 2018.
  30. Powell, J. J., & Dusdal, J. (2017a). Science production in Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg: Comparing the contributions of research universities and institutes to science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and health. Minerva, 55(4), 413–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Powell, J. J. W., & Dusdal, J. (2017b). The European Center of science productivity: Research universities and institutes in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. International Perspectives on Education and Society, 33, 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25, 348–349.Google Scholar
  33. Rivera, R., Sampedro, J. L., & Dutrenit, G. (2009). How productive are academic researchers in agriculture related sciences? The Mexican case. Working paper series. Resource document. United Nations University—Maastricht Economic and social Research and training center on Innovation and Technology. http://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/abstract/?id=3787. Accessed 01 November 2018.
  34. Rojas-Sola, J. I., & Jorda-Albinana, B. (2010). Bibliometric analysis of Venezuelan scientific publications in the ecology category of the Web of Science database (1997–2008). Interciencia, 35(8), 619–623.Google Scholar
  35. Sancho, R. (1992). Misjudgments and shortcomings in the measurement of scientific activities in less developed countries. Scientometrics, 23(1), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR). (2018). SCImago research group. http://www.scimagojr.com/. Accessed 25 December 2018.
  37. Scopus. (2018). https://www.scopus.com/home.uri. Accessed 25 December 2018.
  38. Shrum, W. (1997). View from afar: ‘Visible’ productivity of scientists in the developing world. Scientometrics, 40(2), 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sidone, O., Haddad, E. A., & Mena-Chalco, J. P. (2017). Scholarly publication and collaboration in Brazil: The role of geography. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1), 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spinak, E. (1996). Los análisis cuantitativos de la literatura científica y su validez para juzgar la producción latinoamericana. Boletín de la Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana, 120(2), 139–146.Google Scholar
  41. Uddin, A., Singh, V. K., Pinto, D., & Olmos, I. (2015). Scientometric mapping of computer science research in Mexico. Scientometrics, 105(1), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vílchez-Román, C. (2014). Bibliometric factors associated with h-index of Peruvian researchers with publications indexed on Web of Science and Scopus databases. Transinformação, 26(2), 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Villaseñor, E. A., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Carrillo-Calvet, H. (2017). Multiparametric characterization of scientometric performance profiles assisted by neural networks: A study of Mexican higher education institutions. Scientometrics, 110(1), 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. VOSviewer Manual. (2017). Manual for VOSviewer version 1.6.6 by Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman. http://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.6.pdf. Accessed 01 November 2018.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Direccion de InvestigacionTecnologico de MonterreyMonterreyMexico

Personalised recommendations