Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40880947›Full record

ArticleScientometrics2025

Science diplomacy: A global research field? Findings from a bibliometric analysis of the science diplomacy scholarship of the past twenty years.

Anna-Lena Rüland, Lise H Andersen, Alan Kai Hassen, Carringtone Kinyanjui, Annika Ralfs, Bruno Iochins Grisci

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anna-Lena RülandUniversity College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6057-0062
Lise H AndersenLeiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4411-7254
Alan Kai HassenLeiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6639-1508
Carringtone KinyanjuiUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-3598-319X
Annika RalfsLund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0009-0000-1045-1452
Bruno Iochins GrisciFederal University of Rio Grande Do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4083-5881

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Science diplomacy is a unique research field that is driven and shaped by scholars and practitioners alike. This study examines whether and how recent trends in the broader science diplomacy discourse have impacted scholarship on the topic. First, it examines whether the pertinent scholarship is as international in outlook as practitioners have made science diplomacy out to be. Second, the study investigates whether recent calls to diversify the science diplomacy scholarship have gained traction. It does so by examining how diverse the science diplomacy scholarship is in terms of: (i) The geographical distribution of authors, (ii) the geographical distribution of funding sources as well as (iii) the geographical area that is being studied in science diplomacy publications. Using a network analysis and a large language model-enhanced bibliometric analysis, the study shows that the internationalization of the field-both in terms of author affiliations and geographical area being studied in publications-is only slowly advancing and is currently restricted to a few regions, with the United States and Europe clearly dominating the production of knowledge on science diplomacy. Overall, the study's findings thus corroborate past claims that the science diplomacy scholarship exhibits North-South dynamics similar to those in other research fields.

Indexed as

BibliometricsInternationalizationLarge language modelsNetwork analysisScience diplomacy

Identifiers

PMID40880947
PMCPMC12380894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.