Determinants of citation impact: A comparative analysis of the Global South versus the Global North

Abstract

The impact of the scientific output produced by different nations in different fields varies extensively. In this article, we apply bibliometric and econometric analysis to identify which countries are producing research with relatively higher scientific influence, and to understand what factors lead to higher citation impact. We focus specifically on the Global South because countries in this group are starting to converge in terms of output with the Global North. We find that previous citation impact, level of international collaboration and total publications in a specific scientific field are important determinants of citation impact among all nations. Yet, specialisation in particular scientific fields seems significantly more important in the Global South than in the Global North. We propose possible explanations for the patterns found and derive some policy implications.

A Critical Review of Lion Research in South Africa: The Impact of Researcher Perspective, Research Mode, and Power Structures on Outcome Bias and Implementation Gaps

“…The citing author highlights the usefulness or applicability of the information included in an article. This acknowledges intellectual or cognitive influence (Confraria et al, 2017), such that, when comparable articles are cited more times than others, the comparison translates into a measure of international scientific influence or impact (Moed, 2005), and enables international comparisons to be more objective (Garfield, 1979). A crucial aspect for analyzing the research performance of countries/regions undertaking lioncentered research is to understand whether their scientific output is having an international impact or influence.…”

“…In the first instance we assert that since the lion distribution range is limited to components of the global South, this makes it interesting for scrutiny from a North-South relations assessment point of view. This position on research collaboration has been under scientific scrutiny by a number of researchers in the higher education and international research partnership field (Jentsch and Pilley, 2003;Galvin and Haller, 2008;Confraria et al, 2017). The literature emphasizes the need for partnership, and its related principles, for researchers between developed countries and the rest of the world, whilst its critics highlight the problematical context of structural inequality and historical legacies which are antithetical for the development of mutually beneficial collaborations (Koch-Weser and Yankauer, 1993).…”

Anthropologies of Tourism: What's in a Name?

“…Perhaps one needs to reflect more generally on the practices of citation in the academic world, a discussion that feminist scholars have long engaged in, noticing (and arguing) that male authors, usually located in the United States or the United Kingdom, are cited more often, both by male and female scholars, with scholarly recognition often relying on these citations (Chibnik 2014(Chibnik , 2016Confraria, Godinho, and Wang 2017;Dominguez, Gutmann, and Lutz 2014;Hicks 2004;Hicks et al 2015;Lutz 1990;Merritt 2000;Malesios and Psarakis 2014;Petersen et al 2014;Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano 2008). If one were to broaden the issue beyond gender, as some postcolonial and Indigenous scholars have advocated, one might see the essays in this section as examples of articles not routinely published, read, cited, taught in the classroom, or appearing on lists of readings for comprehensive examinations and in reference bibliographies.…”

The MooSciTIC project: a booster shot of science for West African research and higher education actors

“…By contrast, the African research landscape is complex and highly fragmented and, especially in French-speaking countries, it suffers from a lack of a culture of collaborative work and networking, including at the intra-national and regional levels. It can be assumed that such a deficit in networking may make African scientists less responsive to opportunities and their research less likely to achieve significant impact [6][7][8]. Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for an extremely small fraction of the world's scientific publications (<1%, excluding South Africa), and it is even less represented among peer-reviewed ones [3,9,10].…”