Comments on: Science papers per country

By: Eponimous

Eponimous — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:29:11 +0000

Probably you will be intersting in this … its about Journals of OR..but still its pretty intersting
http://dsslab.cs.unipi.gr/mejds/map/

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:57:38 +0000

Per capita data is not important. It is not about money. Papers reflect the whole country. Big population has some advantage.

By: Daniel Lemire

Daniel Lemire — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:09:17 +0000

Who claimed that more publications corresponds to more science?

I did no such thing.

By: Aleks

Aleks — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:42:52 +0000

Japan a surprisingly small number? I’m not sure they have included all the local publications! It’s more a problem of their database than a problem of Japan.

Also, I am very skeptical of claims that more publications corresponds to more science. More publications given the same amount of intelligence corresponds to more bullshit.

By: Daniel Lemire

Daniel Lemire — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:53:32 +0000

Thanks Martin. I was aware of this limitation. If you can pull out the numbers, I will gladly update my tables.

By: Martin

Martin — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:34:02 +0000

This is an unequal comparison – you cannot compare one years scientific publication total & current population with 10 years of publication and the _current_ population – the figure would need to be an aggregate of the publication ratio per capita per year now (averaged over 10) to produce a valid comparison.

Otherwise you are just saying: look! here’s how many people today would publish per person if they had been publishing for ten years in the space of one year, vs. Look, here’s how many we actually publish in one year!