ArticlePloS one2020
A network analysis of research productivity by country, discipline, and wealth.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scientific Clinical Trial Publication Productivity in Medical Oncology: A Comparative Analysis and Data Review of Northern and Southern Italy.Clinics and practice · 2026Review
- Evaluation of New Zealand's Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Medical Imaging Research Output: A Bibliometric-Based Approach.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Selenium: 48-year journey of global clinical trials.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2025Review
- Data use in social science and medical articles around the world.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Mapping hazards to the global food system.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2024Article
- Authorship of Publications Supported by NCI-Funded Grants Involving Low- and Middle-Income Countries.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- The Challenges and Opportunities for Mental Health Twin Research in Nigeria.Behavior genetics · 2024Article
- Global Scientific Trends on Healthy Eating from 2002 to 2021: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis.Nutrients · 2023Review
- Gender differences in dentistry and oral sciences research productivity by researchers in Nigeria.Frontiers in oral health · 2023Article
- Social Network Analysis of COVID-19 Research and the Changing International Collaboration Structure.Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (science) · 2022Article
- Quantifying research interests in 7,521 mammalian species with h-index: a case study.GigaScience · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Medical Research in Oman: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study.Oman medical journal · 2022Article
- Bibliometric Analysis of Literature on Physical Activity and COVID-19.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Research on metallic glasses at the atomic scale: a systematic review.SN applied sciences · 2022Review
- Prostate cancer in the Arab world: Bibliometric review and research priority recommendations.Arab journal of urology · 2022Article
- Neuropathic Pain and Ultrasonography: A Multiperspective Literature Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
- Scientific globalism during a global crisis: research collaboration and open access publications on COVID-19.Higher education · 2021Article
- How the scientific community responded to the COVID-19 pandemic: A subject-level time-trend bibliometric analysis.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResearch productivity has been linked to a country's intellectual and economic wealth. Further analysis is needed to assess the association between the distribution of research across disciplines and the economic status of countries.
methodsBy using 55 years of data, spanning 1962 to 2017, of Elsevier publications across a large set of research disciplines and countries globally, this manuscript explores the relationship and evolution of relative research productivity across different disciplines through a network analysis. It also explores the associations of those with economic productivity categories, as measured by the World Bank economic classification. Additional analysis of discipline similarities is possible by exploring the cross-country evolution of those disciplines.
resultsResults show similarities in the relative importance of research disciplines among most high-income countries, with larger idiosyncrasies appearing among the remaining countries. This group of high-income countries shows similarities in the dynamics of the relative distribution of research productivity over time, forming a stable research productivity cluster. Lower income countries form smaller, more independent and evolving clusters, and differ significantly from each other and from higher income countries in the relative importance of their research emphases. Country-based similarities in research productivity profiles also appear to be influenced by geographical proximity.
conclusionsThis new form of analyses of research productivity, and its relation to economic status, reveals novel insights to the dynamics of the economic and research structure of countries. This allows for a deeper understanding of the role a country's research structure may play in shaping its economy, and also identification of benchmark resource allocations across disciplines for developing countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.