The scientific impact of nations

By D. King. Nature, 2004

1,181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Reproductive Medicine

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/462c7fe84274f75c1f0bd130ed608ba014555c52

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

In Reproductive Medicine

Citations in the corpus

Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases (2020, methodology): “statistical methods as for publication data, we investigated in this 5 study annual growth rates in gross domestic product (GDP) as a measure of economic wealth of a nation similar to the approach by King (2004a, 2004b). 2 Methods 2.1 Dataset used We used bibliometric and economic data in this study”
New challenges for higher education: global and Asia-Pacific perspectives (2009, background): “Although data on research performance show some possible association between research productivity and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita (King 2004), the causal relations are not clear.”
China's emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience ‘giants’ (2007, background): “Since the indicator of top 1% of highly cited papers is considered to be one of the most important measures of a country’s influence in the scientific community (King, 2004), it may be concluded from the indicator of percentage of none-cited papers and top one percent of highly cited papers that Chi”
The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’ (2006, methodology): “King (2004) elaborating ISI Thomson data.”
Publishing not perishing: how research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews (2015, neutral): “For this reason, there is now considerable pressure in academia not only to publish, but to publish in high - ranking journals (Bretag 2012; King 2004).”
Determinants of citation impact: A comparative analysis of the Global South versus the Global North (2017, background): “These results also indicate that, contrary to what has been evealed by King (2004), the relation between GDPpc and citation mpact is not strictly positive.”
Zoom in, zoom out: Geographic scale and multinational activity (2018, background): “It is widely recognized that in the modern knowledge economy, innovation is the key to wealth generation (King, 2004, Mudambi, 2008).”
A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994-2008) (2010, background): “The volume and impact of academic publications are believed to reflect the nation’s scientific wealth and lead to economic development (King, 2004).”
Bridging the Gap: How Can Information Access and Exchange Between Conservation Biologists and Field Practitioners be Improved for Better Conservation Outcomes? (2009, background): “In a study of the world’s major producers of general scientific literature, King (2004) found that only eight countries (in rank order: the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, France, Canada, Italy and Switzerland) produce 85 percent of the world’s most cited publications.”
The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems (2017, background): “They vary slightly when analyzing real data but are significantly differently from other methods, such as the share of the most cited X% articles [233].”