Bibliometric analysis of publications from post-Soviet countries in psychological journals in 1992–2017

Abstract

For several decades the Soviet academic psychology community was isolated from the West, yet after the collapse of the Soviet Union each of the 15 countries went their own way in economic, social, and scientific development. The paper analyses publications from post-Soviet countries in psychological journals in 1992-2017, i.e. 26 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Over the period in question, 15 post-Soviet countries had published 4,986 papers in psychology, accounting for less than one percent of the world output in psychological journals. However, the growth of post-Soviet countries' output in psychological journals, especially that of Russia and Estonia, is observed during this period. Over time, post-Soviet authors began to write more papers in international teams, constantly increasing the proportion of papers in which they are leaders and main contributors. Their papers are still underrepresented in the best journals as well as among the most cited papers in the field and are also cited lower than the world average. However, the impact of psychological papers from post-Soviet countries increases with time. There is a huge diversity between 15 post-Soviet countries in terms of contribution, autonomy, and impact. Regarding the number of papers in psychological journals, the leading nations are Russia, Estonia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Georgia. Estonia is the leader in autonomy in publishing papers in psychological journals among post-Soviet countries. Papers from Estonia and Georgia are cited higher than the world average, whereas papers from Russia and Ukraine are cited below the world average. Estonia and Georgia also boast a high number of Highly cited papers.

A bibliometric study of human–computer interaction research activity in the Nordic-Baltic Eight countries

“…It may be a fruitful strategy to seek collaboration with researchers from countries such as US and UK with mature HCI research environments to lean on their experiences and practices. The observed preference to collaborate outside the Nordic-Baltic region as opposed to within the region agrees with previous studies of research collaboration within the Nordic (Persson et al, 1997) and the Baltic (Lovakov & Agadullina, 2019) regions. Persson et al (1997) concluded that international collaboration is highly prevalent among Nordic researchers.…”

“…The observed dominance of journal articles from Estonia in the Baltic region followed by Lithuania and Latvia agrees with the observations of Lovakov and Agadullina (2019) for psychology, where Estonia was affiliated with 26.8% of all psychology journal articles published by post-Soviet countries, while Lithuania was affiliated with 7.5% of the papers; Latvia was only affiliated with 1.9% of the post-Soviet psychology papers.…”

“…Only 10% of these international collaborations occurred within the Nordic region, although variations were observed across different scientific fields. Lovakov and Agadullina (2019) showed that there was a moderate level of collaboration between the Baltic countries. However, among the post-Soviet countries the collaborations between Estonia and Russia, and between Lithuania and Russia were the most intense.…”

“…All the countries included in this study follow the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education's (ENQA) common Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education (ESG), and one would expect there to be some minimum level of similarities in the education systems. While there are several general studies of research within the Nordic region (Helander, 1995;Persson et al, 1997) and the Baltic region (Lovakov & Agadullina, 2019;Teodorescu & Andrei, 2014;Zavadskas et al, 2011), there has to the best of the author's knowledge been no previous studies of Nordic-Baltic HCI research. General bibliometric studies such as (Correia et al, 2019) typically omit data based on regional conferences such as NordiCHI.…”

Lifestyle risk behaviors of university students: a bibliometric analysis

“…Networks of collaboration across institutions and countries are critical to intellectual exchange; science is increasingly collaborative in construction of knowledge (Sidone et al, 2016). In general, the more diverse the research collaborations, the greater the productivity, visibility and scientific impact (Lovakov & Agadullina, 2019). Collaborative networks generate a greater dissemination of knowledge in different geographical spaces.…”