Researchers in Asian Countries Raise Their Scientific Profiles Worldwide

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)


More like this

One of the major problems in most societies, subject to "great sorts" of various kinds, is the fact that people observe correlations of attitudes & beliefs, and infer from those necessary relations. For example, if one of the first things that someone finds out about me is that I am an atheist…
Via email, Mike Steeves points me to an Ars Technica article about a Thomson Reuters report on the "decline in American science": The US is beginning to lose its scientific dominance. That's the message from Thomson Reuters, the people behind EndNote and impact factors. According to a report in…
Sipping from the internet firehose...This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H.E.Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week's Global Warming news roundupskip to bottom Another week of Climate Disruption News September 6, 2009 Chuckle, WCC, Royal Society on GeoEngineering,…
There are some really weird comments about Albania below. Part of these confusions have to do with ambiguities as to the religious identity of Albania, traditionally majority Muslim, but after decades of Communism very secular. What exactly are the religious breakdowns? How religious are Albanians…

weak, but not surprising

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.

atheists, we're gonna cut off your heads...


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.

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.

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