Chemistry research in India in a global perspective : a scientometrics profile

We measure India’s contribution to chemistry research in a global perspective. In the five years 2011-2015 Indian researchers have published 62,448 papers in 557 journals. In terms of % share, India (with 6.9% of the world’s publications) is behind only China (25%) and USA (17%). But only 0.86% of papers from India are among the top 1% of the most highly cited papers of the world, compared to 4.86% of papers from Singapore, 2.65% of papers from USA, 2.09% of papers from China, 1.87% of papers from the UK, 1.71% of papers from South Korea and 1.6% of papers from Germany. Papers from India are cited 14.68 times on average compared to cites per paper of 45.34 for Singapore, 30.47 for USA, 23.12 for China, 26.51 for the UK, 21.77 for South Korea and 24.77 for Germany. Less than 39% of papers from India are found in quartile 1 (high impact factor) journals, compared to 53.6% for China and 53.8% for South Korea. Percent share of papers in quartile 1 journals from India is lower than that for the world for all of chemistry and for each one of the eight categories, viz. analytical, applied, inorganic & nuclear, medicinal, multidisciplinary, organic, physical and electrochemistry whether one considers data for the entire five-year period or for 2015 alone. About 20% of Indian chemistry papers are in collaboration with international coauthors. Researchers from only 160 Indian institutions have published at least 100 papers (compared to 362 in USA and 399 in China) and these include 67 state, 14 central and 11 private universities, 27 institutions under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, 20 CSIR laboratories, seven Department of Atomic Energy institutions, and seven Department of Science & Technology institutions. About 40% of all Indian chemistry papers have come from public universities. Only three Indian institutions, viz Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Indian Institute of Science and Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, have published more than 2,000 papers. None of the Indian universities has performed as well as leading Asian universities. Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, a small institution with less than 200 papers, has performed reasonably well

Abitare il pianeta. Futuro demografico, migrazioni e tensioni etniche. Volume secondo. USA, URSS e aree asiatiche e australe

Le ripercussioni e le conseguenze della pressione demografica esercitata dai Paesi in Via di Sviluppo non riguardano soltanto l'Europa; in altre zone del mondo i problemi dell'integrazione etnica e razziale, delle immigrazioni e dello squili-brio demografico sono altrettanto urgenti: in questo volume vengono ripercorse le linee evolutive ed analizzate le tendenze di alcune società extra europee, scelte per l'emblematicità dei casi che rappresentano.- Indice #7- Prima parte Immigrazioni e diversità etnico-razziali nell'evoluzione demografica degli Stati Uniti d'America #9- Il cambiamento demografico negli Stati Uniti: le tendenze recenti e le prospettive future, Thomas J. Espenshade #11- Immigrazione e diversità etnico-razziale: il caso degli Stati Uniti, S. Philip Morgan #47- Seconda parte Considerazioni sul mutamento etnico e demografico in Unione Sovietica #69- La popolazione complessiva e per repubbliche dell'Unione Sovietica, Guido Ortona #71- I gruppi etnici in Unione Sovietica, Marco Buttino #91- Terza parte L'evoluzione delle società multietniche nelle aree asiatica e australe #143- La popolazione indiana, 1951-2021, Enrica Collotti Pischel e Francesco Gallucci #145- Diversità etnica ed emigrazione: il caso delle migrazioni dal Sud-est asiatico all'Australia, Subbiah Gunasekaran e Gerard Sullivan #215- Il mutamento demografico e lo sviluppo di una società multiculturale in Australia, Stephen Castles #243- Stime e proiezioni sull'area asiatico-australe, Gian Carlo Blangiardo #289- Quarta parte Alcune considerazioni sui fenomeni complessivi #303- Le grandezze in campo: sulle conseguenze politiche degli scenari demografici mondiali, Piero Gastaldo #30

Tuberculosis Research in India and China: From Bibliometrics to Research Policy

India and China lead the world in the incidence of tuberculosis (TB), accounting for 23% and 17% respectively, of the global burden of the disease and hold the 15th and the 18th positions in terms of incidence per 100,000 population. But India accounts for only about 5â 6% of the worldâ s research output in this area and China a paltry 1% as seen from papers indexed in three international databases, viz. PubMed, Science Citation Index and Biochemistry and Biophysics Citation Index over the ten-year period 1990â 1999. Thus there is a tremendous mismatch between the share of the burden of the disease and share of research efforts. Is such mismatch acceptable? It raises the question â should resource-poor countries invest in research or should they depend on research performed elsewhere and invest their meagre resources predominantly in health-care measures?â We argue that both India and China should invest much more in research than they do. We have also mapped TB research in the two countries and identified institutions and cities active in research, journals used to publish the findings, use of high impact journals, impact of their research as seen from citations received and extent of international collaboration. Although China performs much less research than India and its work is quoted much less often, it seems to have done far better than India in health-care delivery in TB. Perhaps the Chinese are better able to translate know-how into do-how than the Indians

Production of Doctorates in Selected Asian Countries - Correspondence

This article uses figures to compare the production of doctorates in three Asian countries: India, China, and Japan. It particularly compares doctorates in sciences and engineering. By comparison, this article finds that India produced less doctorates than other two countries

Diabetes Research in India and China Today: From Literature-based Mapping to Health-care Policy

We have mapped and evaluated diabetes research in India and China, based on papers published during 1990â 1999 and indexed in PubMed, Science Citation Index (SCI) and Biochemistry and Biophysics Citation Index (BBCI) and citations to each one of these papers up to 2000. We have identified institutions carrying out diabetes research, journals used to publish the results, subfields in which the two countries have published often, and the impact of the work as seen from actual citations to the papers. We have also assessed the extent of international collaboration in diabetes research in these two countries, based on papers indexed in SCI and BBCI. There is an enormous mismatch between the disease burden and the share of research performed in both countries. Although together these two countries account for 26% of the prevalence of diabetes, they contribute less than 2% of the worldâ s research. We argue that both India and China need to (i) strengthen their research capabilities in this area, (ii) increase investment in health-care research considerably, (iii) facilitate substantive international collaboration in research, and (iv) support cross-disciplinary research between basic life sciences researchers and medical researchers. As data such as those presented here should form the basis of health policy, India and China should encourage evaluation of research

Diabetes research in India and China today: From literature-based mapping to health-care policy

We have mapped and evaluated diabetes research in India and China, based on papers published during 1990–1999 and indexed in PubMed, Science Citation Index (SCI) and Biochemistry and Biophysics Citation Index (BBCI) and citations to each one of these papers up to 2000. We have identified institutions carrying out diabetes research, journals used to publish the results, subfields in which the two countries have published often, and the impact of the work as seen from actual citations to the papers. We have also assessed the extent of international collaboration in diabetes research in these two countries, based on papers indexed in SCI and BBCI. There is an enormous mismatch between the disease burden and the share of research performed in both countries. Although together these two countries account for 26% of the prevalence of diabetes, they contribute less than 2% of the world’s research. We argue that both India and China need to (i) strengthen their research capabilities in this area, (ii) increase investment in health-care research considerably, (iii) facilitate substantive international collaboration in research, and (iv) support cross-disciplinary research between basic life sciences researchers and medical researchers. As data such as those presented here should form the basis of health policy, India and China should encourage evaluation of research

Tuberculosis research in India and China: From bibliometrics to research policy

India and China lead the world in the incidence of tuberculosis (TB), accounting for 23% and 17% respectively, of the global burden of the disease and hold the 15th and the 18th positions in terms of incidence per 100,000 population. But India accounts for only about 5–6% of the world’s research output in this area and China a paltry 1% as seen from papers indexed in three international databases, viz. PubMed, Science Citation Index and Biochemistry and Biophysics Citation Index over the ten-year period 1990–1999. Thus there is a tremendous mismatch between the share of the burden of the disease and share of research efforts. Is such mismatch acceptable? It raises the question ‘should resource-poor countries invest in research or should they depend on research performed elsewhere and invest their meagre resources predominantly in health-care measures?’ We argue that both India and China should invest much more in research than they do. We have also mapped TB research in the two countries and identified institutions and cities active in research, journals used to publish the findings, use of high impact journals, impact of their research as seen from citations received and extent of international collaboration. Although China performs much less research than India and its work is quoted much less often, it seems to have done far better than India in health-care delivery in TB. Perhaps the Chinese are better able to translate know-how into do-how than the Indians

GENERAL ARTICLES - Diabetes research in India and China today: From literature-based mapping to health-care policy

We have mapped and evaluated diabetes research in India and China, based on papers published during 1990–1999 and indexed in PubMed, Science Citation Index (SCI) and Biochemistry and Biophysics Citation Index (BBCI) and citations to each one of these papers up to 2000. We have identified institutions carrying out diabetes research, journals used to publish the results, subfields in which the two countries have published often, and the impact of the work as seen from actual citations to the papers. We have also assessed the extent of international collaboration in diabetes research in these two countries, based on papers indexed in SCI and BBCI. There is an enormous mismatch between the disease burden and the share of research performed in both countries. Although together these two countries account for 26% of the prevalence of diabetes, they contribute less than 2% of the world’s research. We argue that both India and China need to (i) strengthen their research capabilities in this area, (ii) increase investment in health-care research considerably, (iii) facilitate substantive international collaboration in research, and (iv) support cross-disciplinary research between basic life sciences researchers and medical researchers. As data such as those presented here should form the basis of health policy, India and China should evaluation of research