Status of physics research in India: An analysis of research output during 1993–2001

Research output on Lavender, 2008–2012

“…There are only 41 publications (6.53%) in which all forms of collaborations are found, i.e., international, national and institutional. Dominance of national collaboration has been demonstrated in the field of Psychology [32] while international collaboration has been found dominant in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology research in China [27], Obstructive Sleep apnea [30], microRNA research [33], Physical [34] and Dental Science research in India [36], Nanoscience and Nanotechnology research in Pakistan [35], and in a no. of other studies [37,[48][49][50][51].…”

Romanian scholarly productivity: recent history and recommendations

“…Electronic resources were associated with increased publication rates across fields in Finland (Vakkari, 2008), and for physicists in India (Gupta & Dhawan, 2009). Access to information technology predicted both productivity and the impact factors of the journals where life scientists from the USA were publishing, with greater increases for scholars in less prestigious universities (Ding, Levin, Stephan, & Winkler, 2010;.…”

“…Columbian research teams had a 40% increase in productivity related to international collaboration (Ordonez-Matamoros, Cozzens, & Garcia, 2010). International collaborations by Indian researchers in physics were positively related to the impact factors of the journals in which their work was being published (Gupta & Dhawan, 2009). Life science researchers from China who studied abroad, especially in North America, had a greater number of international collaborations and contributed to an increase in the Chinese share of the total world publications in the discipline (Jonkers & Tijssen, 2008).…”

“…A study of science publications in eight countries (Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK) found that funding competitiveness and incentives are not directly related to publication productivity (Auranen & Nieminen, 2010). Physics publications by Indian scholars have grown steadily in recent years despite reduced funding (Gupta & Dhawan, 2009). The Brain Korea 21 program was designed to concentrate research funding on selected institutions.…”

Analysis of publications on paratuberculosis from 1995 to 2009 with emphasis on the period from 2005 to 2009

“…Its usefulness both for evaluation of different scientific disciplines (Aksnes and Hessen, 2009;Gokceoglu and Sezer, 2009;Makris et al, 2009;Ramos et al, 2009), and for the assessment of publication activity by institution (Hruska, 2006) or by country (Gupta and Dhawan, 2009;He et al, 2009;Makris et al, 2009) has been demonstrated by several recent publications. The previous analysis of publications pertaining to paratuberculosis covered the period from 1994 to 2004 (Hruska, 2004).…”