2021/10/04 by Simon Marginson
Arts and Humanities · Decision Sciences · #Bibliometrics #China #Computer science #Discipline #Diversification (marketing strategy) #Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration #Law #Library science #Philosophy and History of Science #Political science #Regional science #Scientometrics #Social science #Sociology #scientometrics and bibliometrics research
paper · pdf · doi:10.1080/03050068.2021.1981725
crossref issued 2021/10/04 · crossref published 2021/10/04 · crossref published-online 2021/10/04 · openalex publication_date 2021/10/04 · crossref created 2021/10/05 · crossref published-print 2022/04/03 · crossref deposited 2023/01/11 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref indexed 2026/08/07 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/08
In the last three decades, a networked global system has emerged in the natural-science-based disciplines, sustained by collegial epistemic relations in universities. Nationally ordered and funded science has expanded alongside the global science system. The common global pool of papers, defined by bibliometric collections, nevertheless excludes large components of knowledge. In the global system, four tendencies are apparent: (1) rapid growth of papers, (2) diversification of scientific capacity to many more countries, (3) expansion of networked international and national collaboration as measured by co-authorship, (4) growing multi-polarity of capacity, outputs and quality, with the rise of China and several middle-sized national systems outside the Euro-American bloc. The paper critiques the interpretation of global science dominant in scientometrics, in which positivist data analyses are applied to performative national comparisons. It argues for a historical-synthetic explanation of the global system that combines data and theorisation, and accounts for relations of power.