Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing insularity in global science

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most scientific research has some form of local geographical bias. This could be caused by researchers addressing a geographically localized issue, working within a nationally or regionally defined research network, or responding to research agendas that are influenced by national policy. These influences should be reflected in citation behavior, e.g., more citations than expected by chance of papers by scientists from institutions within the same country. Thus, assessing adjusted levels of national self-citation may give insights into the extent to which national research agendas and scientific cultures influence the behavior of scientists. Here we develop a simple metric of scientific insularism based on rates of national self citation corrected for total scientific output. Based on recent publications (1996–2010), higher than average levels of insularism are associated with geographically large rapidly developing nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China—the so-called BRIC nations), and countries with strongly ideological political regimes (Iran). Moreover, there is a significant negative correlation between insularism and the average number of citations at the national level. Based on these data we argue that insularism (higher than average levels of national self-citation) may reflect scientific cultures whose priorities and focus are less tightly linked to global scientific norms and agendas. We argue that reducing such insularity is an overlooked challenge that requires policy changes at multiple levels of science education and governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. In reality, countries will vary in their relative contribution to global scientific output over time. However, if citations are of relatively recent references the assumption is relatively robust.

References

  • Harzing, A.-W. (2002). Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 127–148. doi:10.1002/job.125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leite, P., Mugnaini, R., & Leta, J. (2011). A new indicator for international visibility: exploring Brazilian scientific community. Scientometrics, 88(1), 311–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regalado, A. (2010). Brazilian science: riding a gusher. Science, 330(6009), 1306–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCImago (2010) SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Resource document. Available: http://www.scimagojr.com. Assessed on 10 August 2011.

  • Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Globalisation or ‘Glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17(1), 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, P. A., Yeo, D. C. J., Li, D. Q., & Ladle, R. J. (2007). Citing practices in ecology: can we believe our own words? Oikos, 116(9), 1599–1601. doi:10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.15992.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana. C. M. Malhado.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ladle, R.J., Todd, P.A. & Malhado, A.C.M. Assessing insularity in global science. Scientometrics 93, 745–750 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0703-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0703-z

Keywords

Navigation