, Volume 114, Issue 2, pp 737–756 | Cite as

Structure of the scientific research and science policy



Several scientometric indicators of 29 countries were analysed according to main scientific fields (Life, Natural, Applied, and Agricultural Sciences). The difference of the individual countries from the world average in the number of journal papers devoted to the main scientific fields was related to the GDP/capita index of the countries. Four types of research structure could be distinguished by a cluster analysis: countries preferring Life Sciences with higher or lower share in Natural Sciences, and countries preferring Natural Sciences with higher or lower share in Life Sciences. From the results it concludes, the development of a country (measured as GDP/capita) strongly influences but, it does not determine the structure of science by research fields in the country. The number of journal papers in a country classified as top cited (i.e. they belong to the 1% of papers most frequently cited in WoS ESI) was related to the total number of papers published by the country. The so obtained Top paper rate index (TPR) may represent the contribution of countries to the advance of science. Analysis of the TPR indicator of a country by research fields (i.e. Chemistry, Clinical Medicine, Space Science, etc.) may indicate strengths and weaknesses of the research on national level. Relating the Relative field citedness indicator (RW) of a country to the corresponding TPR value, conclusions may be drawn as to the homogeneity of impact of research within a country by fields.


Scientometric indicators and GDP Publication contribution of countries to the world science Types of research structure Impact of publications by research fields Rate of Top cited papers 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albarrán, P., Perianes-Rodríguez, A., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2015). Differences in citation impact across countries. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(3), 512–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cimini, G., Gabrielli, A., & Labini, F. S. (2014). The scientific competitiveness of nations. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e113470. Scholar
  4. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frame, J. D. (1977). Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribean. Intersciencia, 2(3), 143–148.Google Scholar
  6. Garfield, E. (1976). Significant journals of science. Nature, 264(5587), 609–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garfield, E., & Share, I. H. (1963). New factors in evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation, 14(3), 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glänzel, W. (2000). Science in Scandinavia: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 48(29), 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (2002). A relational charting approach to the world of basic research in twelve science fields at the end of the second millennium. Scientometrics, 55(3), 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hatemi-J, A., Ajmi, A. N., Montasser, G. E., Inglesi-Lotz, R., & Gupta, R. (2016). Research output and economic growth in G7 countries: New evidence from asymmetric panel causality testing. Applied Economics, 48(24), 2301–2308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Jurajda, S., Kozubek, S., Münich, D., & Škoda, S. (2017). Scientific publication performance in post-communist countries: still lagging far behind. Scientometrics, 112(1), 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2014). The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 606–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. May, R. M. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275(5301), 793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vinkler, P. (1997). Relation of relative scientometric impact indicators. The Relative Publication Strategy index. Scientometrics, 40(1), 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vinkler, P. (2000). Publication velocity, publication growth and impact factor: An empirical model. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge A Festschrift in honour of Eugene Garfield (pp. 163–176). Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Vinkler, P. (2001). An attempt for defining some basic categories of scientometrics and classifying indicators of evaluative scientometrics. Scientometrics, 50(3), 539–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vinkler, P. (2003). Relation of relative scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 58(3), 687–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vinkler, P. (2004). Characterization of the impact of sets of scientific papers: The Garfield (impact) factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(5), 431–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vinkler, P. (2008). Correlation between the structure of scientific research, scientometric indicators and GDP in EU and non-EU countries. Scientometrics, 74(2), 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vinkler, P. (2009). The π-index. A new indicator for assessing scientific impact. Journal of Information Science, 35(5), 602–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vinkler, P. (2012). The case of scientometricians with the “absolute relative” impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vinkler, P. (2017). The size and impact of the elite set of publications in scientometric assessments. Scientometrics, 110(1), 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Centre for Natural SciencesHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations