Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

The world system of contemporary science: cartographies and dyanmics

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)

MarionMai

March 31, 2021
Tweet

More Decks by MarionMai

Other Decks in Research

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

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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)

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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)

    View Slide

  8. View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  10. The variable administrative fragmentation of the territory at the world level

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  12. The spatial
    deconcentration of
    scientific activity

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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)

    View Slide

  20. The densification of the
    global network of
    collaborations between
    cities

    View Slide

  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?

    View Slide

  22. The geographic structure of scientific
    production
    Traitement et graphique réalisé par Laurent Jégou

    View Slide

  23. 23

    View Slide

  24. 24

    View Slide

  25. 25

    View Slide

  26. View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  28. 28

    View Slide

  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)

    View Slide

  30. Maisonobe, M., Jégou, L., & Cabanac, G., Peripheral Forces, Nature 563, S18-S19 (2018)
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07210-6

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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)

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  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

    View Slide

  35. View Slide

  36. Map of Roscoff’s scientific network at the
    city level

    View Slide

  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)

    View Slide

  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.maisonobecnrs.fr

    View Slide