Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
175 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

The increasing fragmentation of global science limits the diffusion of ideas (2404.05861v1)

Published 8 Apr 2024 in cs.SI and physics.soc-ph

Abstract: The global scientific landscape emerges from a complex interplay of collaboration and competition, where nations vie for dominance while simultaneously fostering the diffusion of knowledge on a global scale. This raises crucial questions: What underlying patterns govern international scientific recognition and influence? How does this structure impact knowledge dissemination? Traditional models view the global scientific ecosystem through a core-periphery lens, with Western nations dominating knowledge production. Here, we investigate the dynamics of international scientific recognition through the lens of national preferences, introducing a novel signed measure to characterize national citation preferences and enabling a network analysis of international scientific recognition. We find that scientific recognition is related to cultural and political factors in addition to economic strength and scientific quality. Our analysis challenges the conventional core-periphery narrative, uncovering instead several communities of international knowledge production that are rapidly fragmenting the scientific recognition ecosystem. Moreover, we provide compelling evidence that this network significantly constrains the diffusion of ideas across international borders. The resulting network framework for global scientific recognition sheds light on the barriers and opportunities for collaboration, innovation, and the equitable recognition of scientific advancements, with significant consequences for policymakers seeking to foster inclusive and impactful international scientific endeavors.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (62)
  1. Hagstrom, W. O. Competition in science. American Sociological Review 39, 1–18 (1974).
  2. Follow the leader: On the relationship between leadership and scholarly impact in international collaborations. PLoS One 14, e0218309 (2019).
  3. Marginson, S. What drives global science? The four competing narratives. Studies in Higher Education 47, 1566–1584 (2022).
  4. Moravcsik, M. J. Applied scientometrics: An assessment methodology for developing countries. Scientometrics 7, 165–176 (1985).
  5. Schott, T. Ties between center and periphery in the scientific world-system: Accumulation of rewards, dominance and self-reliance in the center. Journal of World-Systems Research 112–144 (1998). DOI 10.5195/jwsr.1998.148.
  6. Scientific publication trends and the developing world: What can the volume and authorship of scientific articles tell us about scientific progress in various regions? American Scientist 88, 526–533 (2000).
  7. Tickner, A. B. Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist international relations. European Journal of International Relations 19, 627–646 (2013). DOI 10.1177/1354066113494323.
  8. Collyer, F. Sociology, sociologists and core-periphery reflections. Journal of Sociology 50, 252–268 (2014). DOI 10.1177/1440783312448687.
  9. Leading countries in global science increasingly receive more citations than other countries doing similar research. Nature Human Behaviour 6, 919–929 (2022).
  10. Prebisch, R. The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems. Economic Bulletin for Latin America (1962).
  11. Shils, E. Center and Periphery: Essays in Macrosociology (University of Chicago Press, 1975).
  12. May, R. M. The scientific wealth of nations. Science 275, 793–796 (1997).
  13. King, D. A. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430, 311–316 (2004).
  14. Zelnio, R. Identifying the global core-periphery structure of science. Scientometrics 91, 601–615 (2012).
  15. Under-representation of developing countries in the research literature: Ethical issues arising from a survey of five leading medical journals. BMC Medical Ethics 5, 5 (2004). DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-5-5.
  16. Intersectional inequalities in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2113067119 (2022). DOI 10.1073/pnas.2113067119.
  17. The role of geographical proximity in knowledge diffusion, measured by citations to scientific literature. Journal of Informetrics 14, 101010 (2020). DOI 10.1016/j.joi.2020.101010.
  18. The path- and place-dependent nature of scientific knowledge production in biotech 1986-2008. Journal of Economic Geography 14, 339–364 (2014). DOI 10.1093/jeg/lbs052.
  19. International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics 2, 317–325 (2008).
  20. Freeman, R. B. Globalization of scientific and engineering talent: international mobility of students, workers, and ideas and the world economy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 19, 393–406 (2010). DOI 10.1080/10438590903432871.
  21. Choi, S. Core-periphery, new clusters, or rising stars?: international scientific collaboration among ‘advanced’ countries in the era of globalization. Scientometrics 90, 25–41 (2012).
  22. Schott, T. International influence in science: Beyond center and periphery. Social Science Research 17, 219–238 (1988). DOI 10.1016/0049-089X(88)90014-2.
  23. Seth, S. Putting knowledge in its place: Science, colonialism, and the postcolonial. Postcolonial Studies 12, 373–388 (2009).
  24. Anderson, W. Remembering the spread of western science. Historical Records of Australian Science 29, 73–81 (2018).
  25. Citations strength begins at home. Nature 564, S70–S70 (2018).
  26. China’s rising leadership in science and technology: quantitative and qualitative indicators. Scientometrics 117, 249–269 (2018).
  27. Adams, J. The rise of research networks. Nature 490, 335–336 (2012).
  28. The citation advantage of foreign language references for Chinese social science papers. Scientometrics 120, 1439–1460 (2019).
  29. Aksnes, D. W. A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics 56, 235–246 (2003).
  30. Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius 3, 2378023117738903 (2017).
  31. Self-citation, cumulative advantage, and gender inequality in science. Sociological Science 7, 152–186 (2020).
  32. The geography of scientific citations. Research Policy 48, 1771–1780 (2019).
  33. Multilevel structural evaluation of signed directed social networks based on balance theory. Scientific Reports 10, 15228 (2020).
  34. A clarified typology of core-periphery structure in networks. Science Advances 7, eabc9800 (2021). DOI 10.1126/sciadv.abc9800.
  35. The cognitive structure of Library and information science: Analysis of article title words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62, 1933–1953 (2011). DOI 10.1002/asi.21602.
  36. Milojević, S. Quantifying the cognitive extent of science. Journal of Informetrics 9, 962–973 (2015). DOI 10.1016/j.joi.2015.10.005.
  37. Cheng, M. et al. How new ideas diffuse in science. American Sociological Review 000312242311669 (2023). DOI 10.1177/00031224231166955.
  38. Influential nodes in a diffusion model for social networks. In Automata, Languages and Programming: 32nd International Colloquium, ICALP 2005, Lisbon, Portugal, July 11-15, 2005. Proceedings 32, 1127–1138 (Springer, 2005).
  39. Theories for influencer identification in complex networks. Complex Spreading Phenomena in Social Systems: Influence and Contagion in Real-World Social Networks 125–148 (2018).
  40. Country over-citation ratios. Scientometrics 113, 1199–1207 (2017).
  41. Measuring national self-referencing patterns of major science producers. Scientometrics 123, 979–996 (2020).
  42. Open countries have strong science. Nature 550, 32–33 (2017). DOI 10.1038/550032a.
  43. Openness and impact of leading scientific countries. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 3, 10 (2018). DOI 10.3389/frma.2018.00010.
  44. Glänzel, W. National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics 51, 69–115 (2001).
  45. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 4609–4616 (2020).
  46. Hoffman, S. J. et al. International treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2122854119 (2022).
  47. OpenAlex: A fully open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institutions, and concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01833 (2022).
  48. The World Bank’s classification of countries by income (The World Bank, 2016).
  49. Native language, spoken language, translation and trade. Journal of International Economics 93, 351–363 (2014).
  50. Notes on CEPII’s distances measures: The geodist database. CEPII Documentation (2011).
  51. Economic integration and the transmission of democracy. Tech. Rep., National Bureau of Economic Research (2022).
  52. BACI: International trade database at the product level (the 1994-2007 version). CEPII Working Paper 2010-23 (2010).
  53. The CEPII gravity database (CEPII, 2022).
  54. Polity5: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2018. Center for Systemic Peace 2 (2020).
  55. Langenhove, L. V. Tools for an eu science diplomacy. Luxembourg: European Commission (2017).
  56. Case study. science and technology agreements in the toolbox of science diplomacy: Effective instruments or insignificant add-ons? EL-CSID Working Paper, No.6 (2017).
  57. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44, 837 (1988).
  58. Fast implementation of delong’s algorithm for comparing the areas under correlated receiver operating characteristic curves. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 21, 1389–1393 (2014).
  59. Holm, S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 65–70 (1979).
  60. Peixoto, T. P. Nonparametric bayesian inference of the microcanonical stochastic block model. Physical Review E 95, 012317 (2017).
  61. Shang, J. et al. Automated phrase mining from massive text corpora. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 30, 1825–1837 (2018).
  62. Reproducible science of science at scale: pySciSci. Quantitative Science Studies 1–17 (2023). DOI 10.1162/qss_a_00260.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com