Factors Influencing Cities' Publishing Efficiency

Abstract Purpose Recently, a vast number of scientific publications have been produced in cities in emerging countries. It has long been observed that the publication output of Beijing has exceeded that of any other city in the world, including such leading centres of science as Boston, New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo. Researchers have suggested that, instead of focusing on cities’ total publication output, the quality of the output in terms of the number of highly cited papers should be examined. However, in the period from 2014 to 2016, Beijing produced as many highly cited papers as Boston, London, or New York. In this paper, another method is proposed to measure cities’ publishing performance by focusing on cities’ publishing efficiency (i.e., the ratio of highly cited articles to all articles produced in that city). Design/methodology/approach First, 554 cities are ranked based on their publishing efficiency, then some general factors influencing cities’ publishing efficiency are revealed. The general factors examined in this paper are as follows: the linguistic environment of cities, cities’ economic development level, the location of excellent organisations, cities’ international collaboration patterns, and their scientific field profile. Furthermore, the paper examines the fundamental differences between the general factors influencing the publishing efficiency of the top 100 most efficient cities and the bottom 100 least efficient cities. Findings Based on the research results, the conclusion can be drawn that a city’s publishing efficiency will be high if meets the following general conditions: it is in a country in the Anglosphere–Core; it is in a high-income country; it is home to top-ranked universities and/or world-renowned research institutions; researchers affiliated with that city most intensely collaborate with researchers affiliated with cities in the United States, Germany, England, France, Canada, Australia, and Italy; and the most productive scientific disciplines of highly cited articles are published in high-impact multidisciplinary journals, disciplines in health sciences (especially general internal medicine and oncology), and disciplines in natural sciences (especially physics, astronomy, and astrophysics). Research limitations It is always problematic to demarcate the boundaries of cities (e.g., New York City vs. Greater New York), and regarding this issue there is no consensus among researchers. The Web of Science presents the name of cities in the addresses reported by the authors of publications. In this paper cities correspond to the spatial units between the country/state level and the institution level as indicated in the Web of Science. Furthermore, it is necessary to highlight that the Web of Science is biased towards English-language journals and journals published in the field of biomedicine. These facts may influence the outcome of the research. Practical implications Publishing efficiency, as an indicator, shows how successful a city is at the production of science. Naturally, cities have limited opportunities to compete for components of the science establishment (e.g., universities, hospitals). However, cities can compete to attract innovation-oriented companies, high tech firms, and R&D facilities of multinational companies by for example establishing science parks. The positive effect of this process on the city’s performance in science can be observed in the example of Beijing, which publishing efficiency has been increased rapidly. Originality/value Previous scientometric studies have examined cities’ publication output in terms of the number of papers, or the number of highly cited papers, which are largely size dependent indicators; however this paper attempts to present a more quality-based approach.

[1]  Chuanli Wang,et al.  International scientific collaboration of China: collaborating countries, institutions and individuals , 2012, Scientometrics.

[2]  C. Tardy The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex? , 2004 .

[3]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Which are the best performing regions in information science in terms of highly cited papers? Some improvements of our previous mapping approaches , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[4]  Yuko Iwai The Perceptions of Japanese Students toward Academic English Reading: Implications for Effective ESL Reading Strategies. , 2008 .

[5]  Jesús Rey-Rocha,et al.  Why do I publish research articles in English instead of my own language? Differences in Spanish researchers’ motivations across scientific domains , 2015, Scientometrics.

[6]  Davide Castelvecchi,et al.  Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors , 2015, Nature.

[7]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Mapping excellence in the geography of science: An approach based on Scopus data , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[8]  Jon Crowcroft,et al.  Network analysis of temporal trends in scholarly research productivity , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[9]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[10]  Khalid Mahmood,et al.  Correlation among top 100 universities in the major six global rankings: policy implications , 2016, Scientometrics.

[11]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  The relationship among research productivity, research collaboration, and their determinants , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[12]  Dietmar Wolfram,et al.  Geographic characteristics of the growth of informetrics literature 1987-2008 , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[13]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Regional analysis on Chinese scientific output , 2009, Scientometrics.

[14]  Asao Ando,et al.  National ties of international scientific collaboration and researcher mobility found in Nature and Science , 2017, Scientometrics.

[15]  Elenara Chaves Edler de Almeida,et al.  Brazil’s growing production of scientific articles—how are we doing with review articles and other qualitative indicators? , 2013, Scientometrics.

[16]  J. Morrison China becomes world’s third-largest producer of research articles , 2014, Nature.

[17]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? A new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  Tibor Braun,et al.  World Flash on Basic Research , 2005, Scientometrics.

[19]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Science in Brazil. Part 2: Sectoral and institutional research profiles , 2006, Scientometrics.

[20]  Lyle Campbell Language Isolates and Their History, or, What’s Weird, Anyway? , 2010 .

[21]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results , 1998, Scientometrics.

[22]  Domingo Docampo,et al.  On the internal dynamics of the Shanghai ranking , 2013, Scientometrics.

[23]  Nobuko Miyairi,et al.  Bibliometric characteristics of highly cited papers from Taiwan, 2000–2009 , 2012, Scientometrics.

[24]  Richard Van Noorden Cities: Building the best cities for science , 2010, Nature.

[25]  Fredrik Niclas Piro,et al.  How can differences in international university rankings be explained? , 2016, Scientometrics.

[26]  György Csomós,et al.  Exploring the position of cities in global corporate research and development: A bibliometric analysis by two different geographical approaches , 2016, J. Informetrics.

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

[28]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  The sum of it all: revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[29]  Éric Archambault,et al.  Scientific publications and patenting by companies: a study of the whole population of Canadian firms over 25 years , 2011 .

[30]  György Csomós,et al.  A spatial scientometric analysis of the publication output of cities worldwide , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[31]  B. Björkman Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicative effect , 2011 .

[32]  B. M. Gupta,et al.  Mapping of Indian computer science research output, 1999–2008 , 2010, Scientometrics.

[33]  C. Matthiessen,et al.  The Geography of Chinese Science , 2014 .

[34]  Annette Winkel Schwarz,et al.  Scientific centres in Europe: An analysis of research strength and patterns of specialisation based on bibliometric indicators , 1999 .

[35]  A. Paasi Globalisation, Academic Capitalism, and the Uneven Geographies of International Journal Publishing Spaces , 2005 .

[36]  T. Kealey The Economic Laws of Scientific Research , 1996 .

[37]  Tianwei He,et al.  International scientific collaboration of China with the G7 countries , 2009, Scientometrics.

[38]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Not all international collaboration is beneficial: The Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[39]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[40]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  Evaluating university research: Same performance indicator, different rankings , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[41]  Stephen J. Bensman The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[42]  Mohammed Shahadat Uddin,et al.  Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network , 2011, Scientometrics.

[43]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  The detection of "hot regions" in the geography of science: A visualization approach by using density maps , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[44]  Manfred D. Laubichler,et al.  Measuring the contributions of Chinese scholars to the research field of systems biology from 2005 to 2013 , 2017, Scientometrics.

[45]  Domingo Docampo,et al.  The effect of university mergers on the Shanghai ranking , 2015, Scientometrics.

[46]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Some data on the distribution of journal publication types in the science citation index database , 2005, Scientometrics.

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

[48]  J. C. Bennett,et al.  The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century , 2004 .

[49]  Y. Butler,et al.  Current Japanese Reforms In English Language Education: The 2003 “Action Plan” , 2005 .

[50]  Y. Gingras,et al.  Cities and the geographical deconcentration of scientific activity: A multilevel analysis of publications (1987–2007) , 2014 .

[51]  Tibor Braun,et al.  Gatekeeping patterns in nano-titled journals , 2007, Scientometrics.

[52]  Jiang Li,et al.  Chinese-language articles are not biased in citations: Evidences from Chinese-English bilingual journals in Scopus and Web of Science , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[53]  Laurent Jégou,et al.  The world network of scientific collaborations between cities: domestic or international dynamics? , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[54]  Hong Guo,et al.  Scientific research collaboration in China , 2006, Scientometrics.

[55]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities , 2006, Scientometrics.

[56]  S. Meo,et al.  Impact of GDP, Spending on R&D, Number of Universities and Scientific Journals on Research Publications among Asian Countries , 2013, PloS one.

[57]  Ingo Liefner,et al.  Cooperation in the Innovation Process in Developing Countries: Empirical Evidence from Zhongguancun, Beijing , 2006 .

[58]  Adèle Paul-Hus,et al.  The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.

[59]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system , 2009, Scientometrics.

[60]  Maryam Mahmoudi,et al.  Scientific output of Iran at the threshold of the 21st century , 2005, Scientometrics.

[61]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Correlation between the structure of scientific research, scientometric indicators and GDP in EU and non-EU countries , 2008, Scientometrics.

[62]  Suresh Kumar,et al.  Scientometrics of computer science research in India and China , 2005, Scientometrics.

[63]  Yu Zhou The Making of an Innovative Region from a Centrally Planned Economy: Institutional Evolution in Zhongguancun Science Park in Beijing , 2005 .

[64]  Carlos Gershenson,et al.  Collaborations: The fourth age of research , 2013, Complex..

[65]  Laurent Jégou,et al.  The global geography of scientific visibility: a deconcentration process (1999–2011) , 2017, Scientometrics.

[66]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[67]  D. Hicks Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge , 1995 .

[68]  Zhang Haiqi,et al.  Scientific research collaboration in China , 1997 .

[69]  Gaston Heimeriks,et al.  What drives university research performance? An analysis using the CWTS Leiden Ranking data , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[70]  Yu Xie,et al.  China’s rise as a major contributor to science and technology , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[71]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Is China also becoming a giant in social sciences? , 2007, Scientometrics.

[72]  Ling-Chu Lee,et al.  Research output and economic productivity: a Granger causality test , 2011, Scientometrics.