Scientific Wealth in Middle East and North Africa: Productivity, Indigeneity, and Specialty in 1981–2013

Several developing countries seek to build knowledge-based economies by attempting to expand scientific research capabilities. Characterizing the state and direction of progress in this arena is challenging but important. Here, we employ three metrics: a classical metric of productivity (publications per person), an adapted metric which we denote as Revealed Scientific Advantage (developed from work used to compare publications in scientific fields among countries) to characterize disciplinary specialty, and a new metric, scientific indigeneity (defined as the ratio of publications with domestic corresponding authors) to characterize the locus of scientific activity that also serves as a partial proxy for local absorptive capacity. These metrics—using population and publications data that are available for most countries–allow the characterization of some key features of national scientific enterprise. The trends in productivity and indigeneity when compared across other countries and regions can serve as indicators of strength or fragility in the national research ecosystems, and the trends in specialty can allow regional policy makers to assess the extent to which the areas of focus of research align (or not align) with regional priorities. We apply the metrics to study the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)—a region where science and technology capacity will play a key role in national economic diversification. We analyze 9.8 million publication records between 1981–2013 in 17 countries of MENA from Morocco to Iraq and compare it to selected countries throughout the world. The results show that international collaborators increasingly drove the scientific activity in MENA. The median indigeneity reached 52% in 2013 (indicating that almost half of the corresponding authors were located in foreign countries). Additionally, the regional disciplinary focus in chemical and petroleum engineering is waning with modest growth in the life sciences. We find repeated patterns of stagnation and contraction of scientific activity for several MENA countries contributing to a widening productivity gap on an international comparative yardstick. The results prompt questions about the strength of the developing scientific enterprise and highlight the need for consistent long-term policy for effectively addressing regional challenges with domestic research.

[1]  Daniel Tzabbar,et al.  Bridging the Social Chasm in Geographically Distributed R&D Teams: The Moderating Effects of Relational Strength and Status Asymmetry on the Novelty of Team Innovation , 2015, Organ. Sci..

[2]  Francisco Veloso,et al.  The Scientific Impact of Developing Nations , 2016, PloS one.

[3]  J. Higgins Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2011 .

[4]  D. A. King,et al.  The Scientific Impact of Nations: What different countries get for their research spending , 2004 .

[5]  R. May The Scientific Wealth of Nations , 1997, Science.

[6]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  C. Freeman The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective , 1995 .

[8]  Giulio Cimini,et al.  The Scientific Competitiveness of Nations , 2014, PloS one.

[9]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem1 , 2005, American Journal of Sociology.

[10]  Keun Lee,et al.  Developing National Systems of Innovation , 2015 .

[11]  Yudhijit Bhattacharjee,et al.  Citation impact. Saudi universities offer cash in exchange for academic prestige. , 2011, Science.

[12]  Raimar Richers The theory of economic development , 1961 .

[13]  Hannes Toivanen,et al.  The Global Inventor Gap: Distribution and Equality of World-Wide Inventive Effort, 1990–2010 , 2015, PloS one.

[14]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science , 2008, Science.

[15]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[16]  L William Zartman,et al.  Algeria , 1971, Africa Research Bulletin: Economic, Financial and Technical Series.

[17]  Jonathan Adams Collaborations: The fourth age of research , 2013, Nature.

[18]  C. Freeman Technology policy and economic performance : lessons from Japan , 1987 .

[19]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[20]  Antje Sommer Handbook On The Theory And Practice Of Program Evaluation , 2016 .

[21]  D. King The scientific impact of nations , 2004, Nature.

[22]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[23]  Maureen McKelvey,et al.  Does co-location matter for formal knowledge collaboration in the Swedish biotechnology-pharmaceutical sector? , 2003 .

[24]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Collaboration Structure, Communication Media, and Problems in Scientific Work Teams , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[25]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Complexity, Networks and Knowledge Flow , 2002 .

[26]  R. Solow TECHNICAL CHANGE AND THE AGGREGATE PRODUCTION FUNCTION , 1957 .

[27]  Russell C. Coile,et al.  Lotka's frequency distribution of scientific productivity , 1977, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[28]  César A. Hidalgo,et al.  The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations , 2007, Science.

[29]  J. Richardson,et al.  Prospects for Policy Advances in Science and Technology in the Gulf Arab States: "The Role for International Partnerships". , 2014 .