Search

Scientific journals are currently the primary medium used by researchers to report their research findings. The transformation of print journals into e-journals has simplified the process of submissions to journals and also their access has become wider. Journals are usually published by commercial publishers, learned societies as well as Universities. There are different number of journals published from different countries. This paper attempts to explore whether the number of journals published from a country influences its research output. Scopus master journal list is analysed to identify journals published from 50 selected countries with significant volume of research output. The following relationship are analysed: (a) number of journals from a country and its research output, (b) growth rate of journals and research output for different countries, (c) global share of journals and research output for different countries, and (d) subject area-wise number of journals and research output in that subject area for different countries. Factors like journal packing density are also analysed. The results obtained show that for majority of the countries, the number of journals is positively correlated to their research output volume, though some other factors also play a role in growth of research output. The study at the end presents a discussion of the analytical outcomes and provides useful suggestions on policy perspectives for different countries., Comment: 6 figures and 4 tables

During the last two decades, India has emerged as a major knowledge producer in the world, however different reports put it at different ranks, varying from 3rd to 9th places. The recent commissioned study reports of Department of Science and Technology (DST) done by Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics, rank India at 5thand 9th places, respectively. On the other hand, an independent report by National Science Foundation (NSF) of United States (US), ranks India at 3rd place on research output in Science and Engineering area. Interestingly, both, the Elsevier and the NSF reports use Scopus data, and yet surprisingly their outcomes are different. This article, therefore, attempts to investigate as to how the use of same database can still produce different outcomes, due to differences in methodological approaches. The publication counting method used and the subject selection approach are the two main exogenous factors identified to cause these variations. The implications of the analytical outcomes are discussed with special focus on policy perspectives.

India is emerging as a major knowledge producer of the world in terms of proportionate share of global research output and the overall research productivity rank. Many recent reports, both of commissioned studies from Government of India as well as independent international agencies, show India at different ranks of global research productivity (variations as large as from 3rd to 9th place). The paper examines this contradiction; tries to analyse as to why different reports places India at different ranks and what may be the reasons thereof. The research output data for India, along with the ten most productive countries in the world, is analysed from three major scholarly databases: Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions for this purpose. Results show that both, the endogenous factors (such as database coverage variation and different subject classification schemes) and the exogenous factors (such as subject selection and publication counting methodology) cause the variations in different reports. This paper reports first part of the analysis, focusing mainly on variations due to use of data from different databases. The policy implications of the study are also discussed., Comment: 12 pages Submitted to Journal of Scientific Research