The Evolving Structure of Global Scientific Recognition and Its Impact on Knowledge Diffusion

Konsep Inti

The global scientific landscape is shaped by complex interplays of international collaboration and competition, leading to uneven patterns of scientific recognition and influence across nations. This study maps the evolving structure of the international scientific recognition network and examines its consequences for the diffusion of scientific ideas.

Abstrak

The researchers analyzed over 57 million scientific publications from 223 countries between 1990-2022 to investigate the structure and dynamics of the global scientific recognition network. Key findings:

The international scientific recognition network is a signed, directed network where countries are linked by positive (over-citation) or negative (under-citation) edges. Cultural factors like language, political agreements, and research quality influence these citation preferences.

The network has evolved from a core-periphery structure dominated by a few hubs (e.g. US, Western Europe) to a more fragmented landscape with five distinct regional communities (Western, European, Asian, African, and a peripheral group).

This fragmentation, characterized by increasing negative inter-community citation biases, constrains the diffusion of scientific ideas across national borders. Ideas tend to spread more efficiently within communities compared to between them.

National self-citation preferences are widespread and related to research quality, topic diversity, and patenting activity, suggesting complex mutual influences between national research ecosystems and self-recognition.

The results challenge the traditional core-periphery model of global science, revealing a more nuanced, fragmented landscape shaped by cultural, political, and quality factors. This has important policy implications for fostering inclusive and equitable international scientific collaboration and recognition.

Statistik

"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."
"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."
"We provide compelling evidence that this network significantly constrains the diffusion of ideas across international borders."
"45 countries displayed a negative citation preference towards Turkey. The United States, in particular, exhibited a considerable under-citation preference towards publications from Turkey, as evident from the citation preference score of 0.39 which translates to a shortfall of over 30,000 citations compared to the random baseline."

Kutipan

"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."
"The repercussions stemming from the negative under-citation phenomenon has implications on scholarly impact and recognition within the scientific world."
"The preference of some nations for the scientific work of others, combined with the proliferation of negative biases against groups of countries, is a characteristic hallmark of international scientific fragmentation."

Wawasan Utama Disaring Dari

The increasing fragmentation of global science limits the diffusion of ideas

by Alexander J.... pada arxiv.org 04-10-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.05861.pdf

Pertanyaan yang Lebih Dalam

How might the observed patterns of scientific recognition and fragmentation impact the career trajectories and recognition of individual researchers from different national contexts?

The observed patterns of scientific recognition and fragmentation can significantly impact the career trajectories and recognition of individual researchers from different national contexts. In a global scientific landscape characterized by increasing fragmentation, researchers from peripheral or less recognized countries may face challenges in gaining visibility and recognition for their work. This could lead to disparities in career advancement, funding opportunities, and collaborations compared to researchers from more central or recognized countries. As scientific recognition is closely tied to career progression and opportunities for research funding, the uneven distribution of recognition could hinder the career trajectories of researchers from underrepresented nations.
Moreover, the fragmentation of global science may limit the diffusion of ideas across borders, making it harder for researchers from certain countries to access and build upon cutting-edge research from other parts of the world. This could further isolate researchers from peripheral countries and impede their ability to contribute meaningfully to the global scientific community. In essence, the patterns of scientific recognition and fragmentation could perpetuate inequalities in research opportunities and hinder the career advancement of individual researchers from different national contexts.

What are the potential drivers behind the observed national self-citation preferences, and how might they relate to broader cultural, political, and institutional factors shaping national research ecosystems?

The observed national self-citation preferences can be influenced by a combination of factors related to cultural, political, and institutional contexts within national research ecosystems. One potential driver behind national self-citation preferences is the desire to showcase the impact and quality of research produced within a country. Researchers and institutions may engage in self-citation to highlight the significance of their work and establish a strong reputation within the global scientific community. This practice could be driven by a sense of national pride, the need to secure funding or support for research, and the aspiration to elevate the visibility of domestic research outputs.
Culturally, some countries may prioritize self-citation as a way to promote national achievements and contribute to a sense of academic nationalism. Political factors, such as government policies that incentivize or prioritize domestic research outputs, can also influence the prevalence of national self-citation. Institutional practices within research organizations, funding agencies, and academic institutions may further reinforce the tendency towards self-citation as a means of internal recognition and validation.
These national self-citation preferences are intertwined with broader cultural, political, and institutional factors shaping national research ecosystems. They reflect a complex interplay between national identity, research priorities, and the quest for recognition on the global stage. By understanding and contextualizing these drivers, stakeholders can better navigate the dynamics of national self-citation and its implications for the broader scientific community.

In what ways could international science diplomacy initiatives be adapted to better address the challenges of scientific fragmentation and promote more equitable global knowledge diffusion?

International science diplomacy initiatives play a crucial role in fostering collaboration, knowledge exchange, and innovation across borders. To address the challenges of scientific fragmentation and promote more equitable global knowledge diffusion, these initiatives can be adapted in several ways:

Promoting Diversity and Inclusivity: Science diplomacy efforts should prioritize inclusivity and diversity by actively engaging researchers from a wide range of national contexts. By fostering collaborations that transcend traditional core-periphery structures, initiatives can help bridge gaps in scientific recognition and promote a more inclusive global scientific community.

Facilitating Knowledge Sharing: International science diplomacy initiatives can focus on creating platforms and networks that facilitate the sharing of ideas, resources, and expertise among researchers from different countries. By promoting open access to scientific information and encouraging cross-border collaborations, these initiatives can enhance knowledge diffusion and promote a more interconnected scientific ecosystem.

Supporting Capacity Building: Science diplomacy can play a key role in supporting capacity building efforts in countries with emerging research ecosystems. By providing training, mentorship, and resources to researchers from underrepresented nations, initiatives can empower them to contribute meaningfully to the global scientific community and overcome barriers to recognition and collaboration.

Addressing Structural Inequalities: Science diplomacy initiatives should actively work towards addressing structural inequalities in the global scientific landscape. This includes advocating for fair and transparent evaluation criteria, promoting diversity in research leadership, and challenging biases that hinder the recognition of research from certain national contexts.

By adapting international science diplomacy initiatives to prioritize diversity, knowledge sharing, capacity building, and equity, stakeholders can work towards overcoming the challenges of scientific fragmentation and fostering a more inclusive and collaborative global research environment.