
14 Sep 2011 12 Comments
Authors: Judith Kamalski / Rose L'Huillier
The Rise of Asia: A Research Profile
The rapid growth of Asia’s research community has led to some countries in the region being referred to as “rising stars” or the “next scientific superpowers”.
The region is certainly promising from a scientific point of view. In this article we discuss some of the statistics underlying its development and we examine the current state of research in Asia.
How many articles are published in each of the Asian countries per year?
Figure 1 (below) details article output for Asian countries on the horizontal axis. The different data points per country represent the years from 2006-2010. We can see that China is experiencing explosive growth in article output. India is catching up: output numbers are still low but the growth percentage is impressive. Output from Japan has remained stable for the last couple of years. Impressive growth can also be seen in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand (see figure 2).

Figure 1. Article output for Asian countries combined with citations per article for 2006-2010 datapoints (in both Elsevier and non-Elsevier publications). Source: Scopus Country Data, August 2011.
What is the impact of Asian articles?
In Figures 1 and 2, we can also see the impact of the articles on the vertical axis, defined as citations in year Y to articles published in the previous two years. The citations per Chinese article have improved slightly but are still relatively low in quality when compared to other countries. There is a strong emphasis in China on article output, and less so on quality, which may account for the discrepancy between quantity and quality growth.
Elsevier’s international editors and reviewers currently reject a substantial part (almost 80%) of the articles submitted from China. This quality control is crucial to ensure that the articles published are representative of the high quality of research coming from China. This rigorous peer-review process has ensured that Elsevier-published articles from China already have citation rates higher than those of established countries like France. For India, we can see in Figure 1 that there was an initial increase before citations per article appeared to stabilize. For Japan, not much has changed in the last five years. Even though Taiwan publishes fewer papers than Japan, both the number of papers published and their impact seem to be increasing.
Which countries are strong in international collaboration?
For this analysis, we selected countries with more than 250 articles published in 2010. At 71%, Vietnam has the highest percentage of articles achieved through international collaboration. China and India appear at the bottom of the list with only 15% and 18% respectively. In general, we see that the larger the output from the country, the lower the international collaboration. (For more information see Research Trends, Small Countries Lead International Collaboration, December 2009, Judith Kamalski.)
It is clear that most of the larger countries in Asia have low international collaboration percentages. An increase in international collaboration could well lead to a positive effect on citations per article.
Language issues appear to form a barrier for some of these countries. In order to assist the scientific community in Asia, Elsevier regularly organizes author workshops. These offer advice ranging from how to increase the chance your article is published to international publishing standards (including language), and ethics. Elsevier also offers a Language Editing Service that ensures manuscripts are free of grammatical and spelling errors.
Asia’s future in science
One of the consequences of China’s meteoric rise is that it is projected to have the same world article share as the United States by 2013 (see Figure 3). From that point onward, China will be the largest country in the world in terms of scientific output.

Figure 3. Forecasted country shares of global output. Source: Scopus Country Data, October 2010; China versus US world share of total article output (1996-2008) extrapolated with a linear best-fit trend.
Differences in output and quality between Asian countries are larger than those between, for instance, countries in Europe. In general, with a rising number of scientists having access to more and more articles, differences between countries are reduced. Does this mean that Asian countries will increasingly resemble each other in terms of scientific profiles? That is difficult to predict as a number of factors will play a determining role, including government policies on, and investments in, science, and the economic growth of the country. These influence how quickly they can grow scientific output and increase quality.
The path ahead
Asia’s research position is getting stronger, but is still divided: countries such as Japan are relatively stable in output and quality, while other countries, such as China and India, see a rapid growth, especially in output. What does this mean for our editors? The flow of submissions from Asia will continue to increase, but so will the quality of articles. These developments outline the need for a gradual adaptation of our journals’ editorial boards to accurately reflect the geographical balances in the scientific world.
Author Biographies
Judith Kamalski
PUBLISHING INFORMATION MANAGER, RESEARCH & ACADEMIC RELATIONS
Using citation information, Judith gives advice to journal publishers and editors on how to improve their journals, or to sales staff on characteristics of the universities they visit. Her particular interest lies in the use of the Impact Factor and the emergence of alternative metrics for journal evaluation. Judith regularly presents on these and other topics. She holds two Master’s degrees, one in Corporate Communication and one in French Literature (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen and Sorbonne, Paris IV). Her PhD research focused on the role of language in persuasion (Utrecht and Florida State Universities).
Rose L’Huillier
DIRECTOR STRATEGY AND JOURNAL SERVICES, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Rose trained as an applied mathematician at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam and also holds Master’s degrees in English Literature and Literary Science. She is currently an MBA candidate at the Rotterdam School of Management. In the past seven years she has worked in various Elsevier departments such as production, marketing, strategy, and publishing. She has worked with flagship journals such as The Lancet and Cell and in specialized areas such as High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, and Astronomy. She has recently turned her focus to strategic issues in the company and she is currently responsible for the high-level strategy of Elsevier S&T Journals.



I guess this is why I stopped reading the journals, too much bulk and nothing of value. Maybe I am seeing this differently, but I guess quantity rules over value.
In some countries, authors are awarded some money for each paper they publish in an established journal. I wonder if you have considered this factor in explaining the correlations you have presented.
This is certainly an important factor of consideration. As is mentioned in the article, some countries place more emphasis on quantity than on quality, which can cause a discrepancy in growth. They do this by introducing incentives to stimulate article growth, such as rewarding each article published, or base tenure on the number of articles published. Other countries emphasize quality by, for example, giving researchers more credit for publishing in high-quality journals. Many countries use a combination of these incentives. The choice of incentives can certainly explain why, in China for example, we see a large volume growth while the quality is lacking behind. An informative article was written about this recently in the China Daily called “Publication bubble threatens China’s scientific advance”: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2011-09-25/content_3886280.html
Very interesting article. Many thanks. This mirrors exactly experience with the journal I edit. The rising flow of Asian submissions is an important aspect of workload and it’s important to manage it with consistent high standards. If I am understanding the graphs right, there would be an even starker picture if the horizontal access was submissions rather than publications. Rejection rates of 80% capture this situation; much is probably editorial screening prior to full peer review on the basis of langauge or lack of fit with journal remit – on which one important issue is national differences in understandings of subject areas and their research frontiers. One of my Board runs workshops in China to try to confront these issues and collaboration is certainly a key to success
Quantity leads to quality, almost inevitably. After a large number of researchers are energized, several of them will not be content churning out low-quality papers. Each one of us has a spark that calls for excellence, sooner or later. I am hopeful for China’s scientific future.
As editorial chair of an upcoming international conference with proceedings to be published by Elsevier, I am bracing for a large influx of Chinese papers. Having been associated with the same conference for decades, I have seen this rising trend. One problem I have is finding referees with a good command of English to assess that aspect of the manuscripts. We cannot simply exchange papers for review between authors for this reason, and because referees should have a good academic track record as well. We may try to establish a pre-screening mechanism prior to assigning reviewers to ensure that we forward only papers that are likely to meet the conference’s standards (typically only 40-50% of submitted papers are accepted in a given conference cycle).
Quantity of papers perhaps hasn’t lead to increase in number of quality papers. Rather researchers may be lost among so many papers and waste time to locate what are they are looking for or coming across – new and innovative work as reported in quality papers.
This article is informative but could be better if the following issues are addressed.
Issue 1. In Figure 1 and Figure 2, the direct comparison of citation counts per paper calculated for different countries is questionable. I don’t think it is appropriate to compare two average values calculated from 2,000 samples (Vietnam) and 300,000 samples (China). What is important is comparison how many papers with citation > 5, 2 and 1 for different countries. The averaged value is misleading in my option.
Issue 2. The sentence “There is a strong emphasis in China on article output, and less so on quality…” is questionable. The factors of population and R&D investment are not considered. Authors should present data regarding those factors. For instance, paper number vs. population ratio of different countries should be addressed
Issue 3. In the section of international collaboration, author claimed, “…China and India appear at the bottom of the list … .An increase in international collaboration could well lead to a positive effect on citations per article”. Unfortunately, there is no way to increase citations per article fundamentally for China and India since the available collaboration is limited compared with the number of articles.
Regards
Micheal
Thank you for your comments. Please allow me to provide feedback on some of your points.
Regarding issue 1, the average citations per article is a measure that is often used to assess citation impact. I understand your point on sample sizes, which is why we chose to plot the output as well as the citation impact to let readers judge for themselves.
Regarding issue 2: much has been published already on the issue of quality and quantity in China, for instance “China scientists lead world in research growth” in the Financial Times.
Regarding issue 3, I am not completely sure I understand what you mean when you say that available collaboration is limited for India or China. We still believe that that could have a positive effect on impact (citations per article).
Link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7ef3097e-09da-11df-8b23-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1cSRJMrLb
Why didn’t you consider Iran? One of the fastest growing countries in research?
An unfortunate omission I am afraid, and a good idea for future studies and articles.
Very interesting and helpful!