Science is Culture

Researchers in Asian Countries Raise Their Scientific Profiles Worldwide

Posted by Adam Bly on September 28, 2010
(11)
More »

According to the Thomson Reuters National Science Indicators, an annual database that records the number of articles published in about 12,000 internationally recognized journals:

- The Asia-Pacific region increased its global share of published science articles from 13 percent in the early 1980s to just over 30 percent in 2009
- China is leading the way, having increased its share of articles to 11 percent in 2009 from just 0.4 percent in the early 1980s
- Japan is next, accounting for 6.7 percent, followed by India with 3.4 percent
- The proportion of articles from the United States dropped to 28 percent in 2009, down from 40 percent in the early 1980s

(via New York Times)

(11)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Amy
    October 2, 2010

    weak, but not surprising

  2. #2 judith weingarten
    October 10, 2010

    Raw numbers are not in themselves interesting. Just like Olympic gold medals, translate this into a % of population or GNP or whatever — and then see who is really leading the pack.

  3. #3 dmab
    November 10, 2010

    richarddawkins.net/discussions/543672-inhertitance-of-acquired-behaviour-adaptions-and-brain-gene-expression-in-chickens

    atheists, we’re gonna cut off your heads…

    THE HIGH PRICE OF REVOLUTION
    youtube.com/user/xviolatex?feature=mhum

  4. #4 film izle
    February 15, 2011

    I mean, really?? I’m a scientist, and just reading that even made *my* eyes glaze over. If one thing they’re trying to convey is the importance and relevance of the scientist’s research to GQ readers, what percentage of the readers are really going to walk away with a deeper understanding of what Dr. Jamieson does by reading that description? It would have been a small thing to ask each participant to submit a layman-friendly version of their research (their “elevator talk” description, for example) for GQ to include.

    Finally–one of the “scientists” is Dr. Oz. What is he doing in there? One, I would think he’s already well-known enough; why not save that spot for another scientist? Two, yes, I know he’s actually done research and published, and is on the faculty at Columbia. Fantastic. He’s also a serious woo peddler, who has even featured everyone’s favorite “alternative” doc, Joseph Mercola, on his talk show, and discussed how vaccines may be playing a role in autism and allergies (despite mounds of evidence to the contrary). This seems to completely contradict their goal of “research funding as a national priority,” since Oz is often (and Mercola is always) highly critical of “mainstream medicine.” I really don’t understand his inclusion, and think it’s to the detriment of the rest of the campaign.

  5. #5 altın çilek
    March 26, 2011

    I really don’t understand his inclusion, and think it’s to the detriment of the rest of the campaign.

  6. #6 talha demirezen
    August 11, 2011

    Raw numbers are not in themselves interesting. Just like Olympic gold medals, translate this into a % of population or GNP or whatever — and then see who is really leading the pack.

  7. #7 VIVEK
    September 5, 2011

    nice and attractive post bro how you came with such a great ideas..really bro your every post is providing uniqueness.so sir from where you get such a great ideas,,

  8. #8 body slim
    September 10, 2011

    I really don’t understand his inclusion, and think it’s to the detriment of the rest of the campaign.

  9. #9 David Austin
    March 1, 2012

    http://www.indiegogo.com/The-Alzheimers-Blitzkrieg?a=441422

    Your article inspired me into action! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

    David

  10. #10 afrika mangosu
    March 19, 2012

    I really don’t understand his inclusion, and think it’s to the detriment of the rest of the campaign.

  11. #11 yasin suresi
    April 1, 2012

    I really don’t understand his inclusion, and think it’s to the detriment of the rest of the campaign.