Save 37% off PRO during our Black Friday Sale! »

The world system of contemporary science: cartographies and dyanmics

4d285ecf77acc9c9926952e13db09edd?s=47 MarionMai
March 31, 2021

The world system of contemporary science: cartographies and dyanmics

Intervention at the ENSAE school on March, the 31th in Paola Tubaro and Floriana Gargiulo's course on social network analysis (SNA)

4d285ecf77acc9c9926952e13db09edd?s=128

MarionMai

March 31, 2021
Tweet

Transcript

  1. The world system of contemporary science: cartographies and dynamics Lecture

    at ENSAE - Paola Tubaro and Floriana Gargiulo's course - 2021-03-31 Marion Maisonobe – CNRS researcher, Géographie-cités lab, Paris / Aubervilliers
  2. A collaborative research  « ANR Géoscience » project (2010

    - 2013), coordinated by M. Grossetti and D. Eckert  Netscience group (2013 - 2024), Opération « Mondes Scientifiques », Labex Structuration des Mondes Sociaux (SMS), coordinated by B. Milard and L. Jégou  NETSCITY project (2019 - 2021), FMSH, co-coordinated with L. Jégou and G. Cabanac  A spatial scientometrics approach (Frenken et al., 2009) or quantitative geography of scientific activities Mark Jefferson, 1929
  3. A multilevel approach Scientific spaces  problem areas  specialties,

    collectives, communities or research movements  disciplines  the scientific activity Geographic spaces  local systems  national systems of research  circulation spaces or diaspora  the macro-regions and the world
  4. The expansion of the contemporary scientific system Two main results:

    The spatial deconcentration of research activity (production, collaboration, visibility) The densification of the world network of collaboration between cities
  5. Context and questions  Policies  “hierarchical” differentiation in the

    roles of universities  Belief in a tendency for spontaneous concentration of research forces in places of scientific excellence (invisible hand).  Over the last decade, do we assist to a concentration of: 1. World scientific production? (production share of the main hubs) 2. Scientific collaborations? (centrality of the main hubs) 3. Scientific visibility? (share of citations received by the main hubs)
  6. The spatial bibliometrics approach • 1. Scientific production  Number

    of publications/urban area/year • 2. Scientific collaboration  Number of scientific co-authorships between urban areas/year 3. Scientific visibility  Number of citations (3-year windows)/urban area/year
  7. Source and method • The geocoding of Web of Science

    publication data (Clarivates Analytics – OST/HCERES) clustered by urban areas (Maisonobe et al., 2018)  19 millions of publications between 1999 and 2014 • Whole normalized counting (Gauffriau et al., 2008) and 3-year average • Number of publications and co-authorship links between 1999 and 2014 + citations received by all the 1999-2011 publications over a three-year window  for 2011 publications, we looked at the number of citations received as of 2014 (the last year considered by this study)
  8. None
  9. a spatial bibliometrics method to study science at the world

    scale and at the urban area resolution level Localising the municipalities from which researchers are signing their publications Building urban areas’ perimeters using the distribution of population density Washington - Baltimore
  10. The variable administrative fragmentation of the territory at the world

    level
  11. Normalizing the link values The sum of the links equals

    the total nb of co-publications in the corpus 0.3 0.3 1.3
  12. The spatial deconcentration of scientific activity

  13. Evolution of the scientific production bet. 2000 and 2013. Source:

    Web of Science (articles, reviews, letters) Conception et réalisation: Laurent Jégou Crédit: L. Jégou et M. Maisonobe
  14. Change in the global concentration of production by classes of

    cities Most publishing cities 2000* 2003* 2007* 2010* 2013* Trend Top 10 17.1 15.8 14.7 14.0 14.1 Top 20 24.6 23.4 22.2 21.3 21.6 Top 30 30.2 29.0 27.5 26.6 27.1 Top 50 39.1 37.7 36.0 35.1 35.6 Top 100 52.8 51.3 49.8 48.7 49.2 Top 200 69.7 68.3 66.7 65.3 65.1 Top 500 89.6 88.4 86.7 85.0 84.4 Top 1000 96.7 96.3 95.5 94.6 94.2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Share of the global total of publications (%) Source: Science Citation Index Expanded (articles, reviews and letters) *mobile average over three years
  15. Change in the global concentration of collaboration by classes of

    cities Most co-authoring cities 2000* 2003* 2007* 2010* 2013* Trend Top 10 15.6 14.7 13.7 12.9 12.8 Top 20 22.7 21.7 20.2 19.4 19.2 Top 30 28.3 27.1 25.5 24.5 24.3 Top 50 36.9 35.6 33.8 32.7 32.5 Top 100 50.9 49.2 47.0 45.6 45.3 Top 200 67.7 65.8 63.8 62.2 61.6 Top 500 88.0 86.6 84.6 82.7 81.8 Top 1000 95.8 95.1 94.0 92.9 92.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Share of the global total of collaborations (%) Source: Science Citation Index Expanded (articles, reviews and letters) *mobile average over three years
  16. Change in the global concentration of citations by classes of

    cities Most cited cities 2000* 2003* 2007* 2010* 2013* Trend Top 10 23.5 21.1 18.5 17.4 16.7 Top 20 33.3 30.5 27.5 25.9 24.9 Top 30 39.5 36.9 33.8 32.2 31.1 Top 50 49.5 46.7 43.7 41.7 40.9 Top 100 64.1 61.3 57.8 56.0 55.3 Top 200 80.2 77.5 74.7 72.9 71.8 Top 500 94.9 93.8 92.1 90.8 89.7 Top 1000 98.7 98.3 97.7 97.1 96.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Share of the global total of citations (%) Source: Science Citation Index Expanded (articles, reviews and letters) *mobile average over three years
  17. Evolution of the world production share of the top publishingAsian

    cities (%) 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.3 2000* 2003* 2007* 2010* 2013* World production share (%) Asian cities in the top 10 publishing cities Beijing Seoul Tokyo Shanghai
  18. Evolution of the world production share of the top publishing

    non-Asian cities (%) 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2000* 2003* 2007* 2010* 2013* World production share (%) Non-Asian cities in the top 10 publishing cities New-York London Boston Paris San-Francisco-Bay Area Washington out in 2008
  19. Top publishing cities in 2013 Publication share in 2013 -

    Publication share in 2000 Collaboration share in 2013 - Collaboration share in 2000 Citation share in 2013 - Citation share in 2000 Beijing -7 -4.7 -4.4 Seoul 2.5 0.3 1.7 Tokyo 2 1.2 1.5 Shanghai -2.3 -0.8 -1.5 New-York -0.7 -0.3 -1.3 Boston 0.3 0.6 -0.5 Paris -3.9 -2.8 -6.4 London -0.2 1.5 -3.2 Nanjing 0.5 -0.5 1.4 San-Francisco-Bay Area -0.4 -0.4 -0.6 Kyoto -1.3 -0.7 -2.7 Washington-Bethesda -0.8 -0.9 -1.1 Los-Angeles 0.1 0.1 0.3 Taipei -6.1 -3.9 -9.8 Wuhan 0.6 0.6 1.7 Teheran -8.1 -14.5 -4.7 Xian 1.4 0.3 1.1 Guangzhou 1.3 1.1 2.1 Moscow -5.1 -7.6 -8 Hangzhou 0.6 0.7 1.3 National total Source: Science Citation Index Expanded (articles, reviews and letters)
  20. The densification of the global network of collaborations between cities

  21. What about the structure of the global network of collaboration?

     Is the globalisation of scientific production activities accompanied by : • the disappearance of national contexts in favour of global cooperation networks... • ...OR, on the contrary, a maintenance of the structuring character of national and macro- regional areas in the way collaboration organises?
  22. The geographic structure of scientific production Traitement et graphique réalisé

    par Laurent Jégou
  23. 23

  24. 24

  25. 25

  26. None
  27. Source: SCI Expanded (articles, reviews, letters) Note : *Fractional whole

    number counting (WNC), three-year moving average. **ROW = Rest of World. Europe 2000* 2007* 2013* Russian world 2000* 2007* 2013* Intranational Links (%) 43.0 44.1 44.3 Intranational Links (%) 29.0 41.6 56.5  Intra-Europe Links (%) 33.0 32.3 31.5 Intra-Russian world Links(%) 3.4 3.0 2.6  Links with ROW** (%) 24.1 23.6 24.2  Links with ROW ** (%) 67.7 55.4 40.9  100 100 100 100 100 100 Number of publications 102614 156549 227732 Number of publications 5574 8249 15797 North America 2000* 2007* 2013* Oceanic world 2000* 2007* 2013* Intranational Links (%) 66.1 64.9 61.9 Intranational Links (%) 36.1 34.6 35.6  Intra-N.-Am Links (%) 5.3 5.4 4.9  Intra-Oceanic Links (%) 7.5 8.0 8.6  Links with ROW** (%) 28.6 29.7 33.2 Links with ROW ** (%) 56.4 57.3 55.9  100 100 100 100 100 100 Number of publications 77738 116079 158381 Number of publications 7223 14120 28454 Asiatic world 2000* 2007* 2013* Arab world 2000* 2007* 2013* Intranational Links (%) 70.1 71.3 71.0 Intranational Links (%) 19.6 24.7 22.5  Intra-Asian Links (%) 5.5 6.4 5.5  Intra-Arab world Links (%) 9.6 11.4 20.5  Links with ROW ** (%) 24.4 22.3 23.5 Links with ROW ** (%) 70.8 63.8 57.0  100 100 100 100 100 100 Number of publications 38224 80890 149438 Number of publications 1730 3903 12243 Latin America 2000* 2007* 2013* Sub-saharan Africa 2000* 2007* 2013* Intranational Links (%) 43.3 56.0 60.8 Intranational Links (%) 25.6 28.1 28.1  Intra-Lat-Am Links (%) 8.5 7.1 6.3 Intra-Sub-s Africa Links (%) 6.6 9.3 10.6  Links with ROW ** (%) 48.2 36.9 32.9 Links with ROW ** (%) 67.8 62.5 61.3  100 100 100 100 100 100 Number of publications 6866 15124 27364 Number of publications 1760 3546 6614 Patterns of collaboration within world macro-regions and their evolution
  28. 28

  29. Main results  An increasingly multi-centric structure of scientific collaboration

    (Glänzel et al, 2008; Henneman et al, 2012; Maisonobe et al, 2016; Gui et al., 2019)  Overall growth of all types of collaborations to the detriment of single author articles  An higher growth of intra-national collaborations in countries where the deconcentration process of the production have been the most intensive between 2000 and 2013  The integration of China into the world network + the importance of intra-national links  Higher growth of macro-regional collaborations within the Arab World and within the Sub-saharian area  Higher growth of collaborations between the macro-regional areas that are the most peripheric (South-South cooperation)
  30. Maisonobe, M., Jégou, L., & Cabanac, G., Peripheral Forces, Nature

    563, S18-S19 (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07210-6
  31. The GeoScimo website in french and english GEOgraphie de la

    production SCIentifique MOndiale URL : https://www.irit.fr/netscity An online tool (beta version) to analyse and map scientific networks at the city level
  32. For whom? • Scientists wanting to get a global overview

    of their research field (example of a systematic survey) • Information science specialists wanting to produce a report or an analysis • Policy makers wanting to get a global overview of the research activity of their institution • Geographers, sociologists and historians specialized in the social study of science (STS researchers)
  33. Data processing : 1) Extraction of addresses 2) Geocoding 3)

    Clustering at the urban area/country levels File with bibliographic metadata Sources: Web Of Science, Scopus, or personal files in .csv Input Netscity Outputs • Cartes • Tables • Fichier d’export Contexte
  34. Roscoff scientific production by city at the European level since

    2000 Roscoff : 1090 publications Paris : 178 Santiago : 31.6 Nantes : 31.5 Aix-Marseille : 29 Exeter : 27 Nice : 25 New-York : 22 Perpignan : 22 Barcelona : 21 Lyon : 18.7 Normalised number of publications. Source: WoS (All indexes). Query: AD = « Roscoff ». Retrieval date: 2020-10-08. Screenshot from NETSCITY: https://irit.fr/netscity
  35. None
  36. Map of Roscoff’s scientific network at the city level

  37. The internationalisation of the marine biology station’s scientific activity Research

    project « POPSU Territoires : Révéler les territoires à travers l’étude de cas », 2019-2021 «Between science and industry, a small town at the crossroads of globalised networks and new development paths: the case of Roscoff». Coord. J. Tallec (UMR PACTE, Univ. Grenoble Alpes)
  38. References  Grossetti, Michel, Marion Maisonobe, Laurent Jégou, Béatrice Milard,

    and Guillaume Cabanac. 2020. ‘Spatial Organisation of French Research from the Scholarly Publication Standpoint (1999-2017): Long-Standing Dynamics and Policy-Induced Disorder’. EPJ Web Conf. 244. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/202024401005.  Maisonobe, Marion, Laurent Jégou, Nikita Yakimovich, and Guillaume Cabanac. 2019. ‘NETSCITY: A Geospatial Application to Analyse and Map World Scale Production and Collaboration Data between Cities’. in ISSI’19: 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics. Rome.  Maisonobe, Marion, Laurent Jégou, and Guillaume Cabanac. 2018. ‘Peripheral Forces’. Nature Index (563):S18–19.  Maisonobe, Marion, Michel Grossetti, Béatrice Milard, Laurent Jégou, and Denis Eckert. 2017. ‘The Global Geography of Scientific Visibility: A Deconcentration Process (1999–2011)’. Scientometrics 113(1):479–93.  Maisonobe, M., Grossetti, M., Milard, B., Eckert, D., & Jégou, L. (2016). The global evolution of scientific collaboration networks between cities (1999–2014): Multiple scales. Revue Française de Sociologie, 57(3), 417–441. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.573.0417 • ANY QUESTIONS ? Contact: marion.maisonobe<at>cnrs.fr