Impact of GDP, Spending on R&D, Number of Universities and Scientific Journals on Research Publications among Asian Countries

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the impact of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, spending on Research and Development (R&D), number of universities, and Indexed Scientific Journals on total number of research documents (papers), citations per document and Hirsch index (H-index) in various science and social science subjects among Asian countries.Materials and MethodsIn this study, 40 Asian countries were included. The information regarding Asian countries, their GDP per capita, spending on R&D, total number of universities and indexed scientific journals were collected. We recorded the bibliometric indicators, including total number of research documents, citations per document and H-index in various science and social sciences subjects during the period 1996–2011. The main sources for information were World Bank, SCI-mago/Scopus and Web of Science; Thomson Reuters.ResultsThe mean per capita GDP for all the Asian countries is 14448.31±2854.40 US$, yearly per capita spending on R&D 0.64±0.16 US$, number of universities 72.37±18.32 and mean number of ISI indexed journal per country is 17.97±7.35. The mean of research documents published in various science and social science subjects among all the Asian countries during the period 1996–2011 is 158086.92±69204.09; citations per document 8.67±0.48; and H-index 122.8±19.21. Spending on R&D, number of universities and indexed journals have a positive correlation with number of published documents, citations per document and H-index in various science and social science subjects. However, there was no association between the per capita GDP and research outcomes.ConclusionThe Asian countries who spend more on R&D have a large number of universities and scientific indexed journals produced more in research outcomes including total number of research publication, citations per documents and H-index in various science and social science subjects.

Orthopaedic research activity in South Africa measured by publication rates in the 15 highest impact journals related to population size and gross domestic product

“…Earlier research by Meo et al 14 and Halpenny et al 15 could not demonstrate a correlation between per capita GDP, total number of publications, or h-index in various science and social science journals, but did show a strong and positive correlation between the number of publications and the percentage of GPD spent on research. The available data from the World Bank from 2012 shows that Egypt (0.68%), South Africa (0.73%), Ethiopia (0.61%) and Tunisia (0.68) spend very similar percentages of their GDP on research funding.…”

“…11 In addition, the availability of funding would certainly result in higher publication output by countries with a larger population size and more powerful economies in particular when considering the economic realities of low income and developing countries. 11,14 To adjust for these inconsistencies the use of gross domestic product (GDP) and gross domestic product per capita may result in more meaningful results and allow for comparisons between countries. 15 The purpose of this study was threefold: 1) to investigate the number of publications and impact of South African surgeons in the 15 highest impact orthopaedic journals over a five-year period and relate these variables to population size, GDP and GDP per capita; 2) to establish the number of publications required for South Africa to be equal with the country having the overall highest research output, to establish the number of publications required for South Africa to be comparable to the average; 3) and to compare South Africa's research output to other African countries.…”

Analysis of Scholarly Communication Activities in Buddhism and Buddhist Studies

“…The Thomson Reuters' Web of Science (WoS, http://wokinfo.com/) is the most widespread database on different scientific fields that is frequently used for searching the literature [24][25][26][27]. WoS includes over 12,000 journals worldwide, 150,000 conference proceedings, and 275,000 books and book chapters.…”

“…In order to explain the intrinsic limits of the adopted methodology, we must remember that (1) all databases are working by finite, limited, and selective bibliometric information [24][25][26], because in general, regardless of the size of a data set, it is always subject to some bias and limitation. In addition, in the particular case of selected WoS database for the present research, the following points should be also noted: there is a possible (2) "geographical" limitation on the access to the Thomson Reuters' WoS from researchers in some non-developed countries in the Third World [30,31] or isolated countries [32], and (3) the number of citations will be partially underestimated during the first period (1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005) of the present scientometric analysis (1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011) in the particular cases of BKCI-S and BKCI-SSH, with both of these databases covering a 10-year period from 2005 to today.…”

The European Center of Science Productivity: Research Universities and Institutes in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom

“…Empirical studies and bibliometric analyses have examined scientific publications as early as the 1970s (Schofer, 2004), but most have focused on the decades since 1980 (Adams, 2009;Adams, Black, Clemmons, & Stephan, 2005;Bornmann & Mutz, 2015;Godin & Gingras, 2000) or the era since 1990 (Bornmann, Wagner, & Leydesdorff, 2015). Moreover, comparative studies have considered the number Introduction of universities in each country, but have not focused on the different institutional models that shaped the development of the higher education sector, and ultimately, universities' capacity for scientific research (Meo, Al Masri, Usmani, Memon, & Zaidi, 2013;Meo, Usmani, Vohra, & Bukhari, 2013;Teodorescu, 2000). This limited perspective has severely reduced the potential of comparative and historical case studies that directly examine how different institutional models evolved in historical context À and the consequences for research capacity at national and organizational levels.…”