• Arunachalam replies (Correspondence on "Science in India)

      Arunachalam, Subbiah (2004-05)
      This is a correspondence on "Science in India" which was written by R. P. Gupta in the same issue of Current Science. In responding to Gupta's idea to "use citations per paper in addition to the number of papers published by a country," Arunachalam argues that the citations to all papers from these countries are more important. Compares the rates of total papers, total citations, as well as "citations per paper", trying to showing which index is more meaningful for conveying research significance.
    • China Promotes Traditional Medicine

      Arunachalam, Subbiah (2002-08)
      This is a short introduction that reports the Chinese Government launched a special project on modernization and industrilization of TCM in 1999 in an effort to promote traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the global market.
    • Correspondence on "Diabetes Research in India"

      Arunachalam, Subbiah (2002-08)
      This is a correspondence generated by the article "Diabetes research in India" between the author, A. Subiah Arunachalam and Rosalind Marita.
    • Diabetes Research in India and China Today: From Literature-based Mapping to Health-care Policy

      Arunachalam, Subbiah; Gunasekaran, Subbiah (2002-05)
      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.
    • Is Mathematics Research in India on the Decline?

      Arunachalam, Subbiah (2002-08)
      In this article, the author argues that the number of scientific research papers published from India is on the decline. The conclusions are drawn upon data on the number of papers indexed in MathSciNet, the web database of the American Mathematical Society, covering mathematics, statistics, operational research and related fields.
    • Is Science in India on the Decline?

      Arunachalam, Subbiah (2002-07)
      This is a short correspondence paper that tries to use citation analysis to compare research productivities in the sciences among different countries. It draws data from the Science Citation Index. It finds that over two decades the number of research papers has risen in other countries, but it has decreased in India.
    • Mapping Agricultural Research in India: A Profile Based on CAB Abstracts 1998

      Arunachalam, Subbiah; Umarani, K. (2001-10)
      CAB Abstracts 1998 had indexed 11,855 publications from India, including 10,412 journal articles, from more than 1280 institutions in 531 locations. These were classified into 21 major research fields and 243 subfields. â Plants of economic importanceâ (FF) is the leading area of research in India, followed by â Animal scienceâ (LL). The three subfields with the largest number of papers are: â Pests, pathogens and biogenic diseases of plantsâ , FF600 (1301 papers), â Plant breeding and geneticsâ , FF020 (1135 papers), and â Plant productionâ , FF100 (786 papers). In contrast, there were only 54 papers in â Biotechnologyâ (WW). Academic institutions accounted for a little over 59% of the papers in 1998, as against 63.4% in the five years 1990â 1994, and scientific agencies of the central government accounted for 22% of the papers. Agricultural universities had published 4039 papers and agricultural colleges 523 papers. Indian researchers had published over 78% of the 10,412 journal articles in 208 Indian journals, 587 papers in 180 UK journals, and 368 papers in 124 US journals. In no other field do Indian researchers publish such a large per cent of papers in Indian journals. Letters journals were used only infrequently: 317 papers in 40 letters journals. More than 8060 papers were published in non-SCI journals, and 1925 papers were published in journals of impact factor less than 1.0. Only 33 papers were published in journals of impact factor higher than 3.0. We have identified institutions publishing large number of papers in different subfields, in different journals, in journals of different impact factors, etc. This macroscopic analysis not only provides an inventory of Indiaâ s publications, but also gives an idea of endogenous research capacity. If appropriately linked with public policy, it can help restructure the nationâ s research priorities.
    • Mapping Fish Research in India

      Arunachalam, Subbiah; Jayashree, B. (2000-09)
      Fish and aquaculture research in India has been mapped using data from six databases. About 460 papers, roughly 5.5% of the world output, come from India every year, of which 82% are journal articles. Close to 70% of journal articles have appeared in 113 Indian journals. Less than a third of the journal articles are published in journals indexed in SCI. About 61% of publications are contributed by government laboratories and over 25% by academic institutions. Government laboratories publish most of their work in low impact and low visibility journals and academic institutions in journals of medium impact. However, even those papers appearing in better-rated journals are not cited well. Kochi, Chennai, Mumbai and Mangalore are the cities and Tamil Nadu and Kerala are the states contributing large number of papers.
    • Mapping International Collaboration in Science in Asia through Coauthorship Analysis

      Arunachalam, Subbiah; Doss, M. Jinandra (2000-09)
      Using data from SCI 1998, we have analysed international collaboration in science in 11 Asian countries. Papers resulting from collaboration among these countries and with G7, European Union, OECD and selected Latin American and African countries were classified under subject categories to characterize each countryâ s total and collaborated scientific literature output. Japan (16.4% of internationally collaborated papers), India (17.6%) and Taiwan (16.3%) recorded an internationalization index less than 30 whereas China (28.5%), South Korea (24.6%) and Hong Kong (36.2%) recorded an internationalization index greater than 40. India, China and South Korea have collaborated more in physics, whereas the other eight countries have collaborated more in life sciences. In almost all fields and for virtually all Asian countries, USA is the most preferred collaborating partner. All G7 countries collaborate more with China, which is emerging as a leader in regional collaboration, than with India.
    • Mapping Life Sciences Research in India: A Profile Based on BIOSIS 1992-1994

      Arunachalam, Subbiah (1999)
      Life sciences research carried out in India, as seen from the journal literature indexed in three years of BIOSIS Biological Abstracts (1992-1994), is quantified and mapped. The Indian institutions active in life sciences research, the journals and sub-fields in which they publish their work, and the impact factors of the journals as seen from Journal Citation Reports 1992 and 1994 are identified. In the three years studied researchers from over 1,400 institutions located in over 450 cities/ towns have authored 20,046 papers in 1,582 journals published from 52 countries. Over 54% of these papers have appeared in 18 Indian journals. While India has contributed papers to al 10 sub-fields, her contribution has exceeded 1,000 papers in three years in only four sub-fields, and 500 papers in seven other sub-fields. Only 49 institutions have published more than 100 papers each. The contribution made by different institutions to 26 sub-fields and to 36 often used journals is highlighted. More than 64% of Indian papers indexed in BIOSIS come from academic institutions. Among scientific agencies, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research have published more than 1,500 papers each. In all Indian researchers have published 188 papers (less than 1.0%) in journals with a 1994 impact factor greater than 4.0. More than 46.3% of Indian papers have appeared in non-5CY journals, and a further 37.5% of papers have been published in journals with impact factors less than 1.0. The analysis reveals the existence of two clusters: a large number of institutions devoted to agriculture and classical biology, publishing mostly in low-impact journals, often in Indian journals, and a smaller group of institutions publishing some papers in new biology and some areas of medicine in quality international journals of medium impact. The larger cluster includes the agricultural universities and many general universities, while the smaller cluster includes the Indian Institute of Science, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, National Institute of Immunology, and Indian Institute of Chemical Biology. While it would be desirable for Indian researchers to publish bulk of the agricultural research and a substantial part of medical research in Indian journals, they have no such constraint in new biology and can publish their work in high-impact international journals. Yet only a small proportion of Indian papers in biochemistry and molecular biology, general and internal medicine, microbiology, biophysics, immunology, and gastroenterology have appeared in such journals.
    • On Publication Indicators - Correspondence

      Arunachalam, Subbiah (2004-03)
      Correspondence on an article by Satyanarayana and Jain's which appeared in the same issue (but is not included here). Includes a rather lengthy rejoinder with supporting tables of data.
    • Production of Doctorates in Selected Asian Countries - Correspondence

      Arunachalam, Subbiah; Gunasekaran, Subbiah (2003-01)
      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.
    • Quality of Science and Science Journals in India

      Arunachalam, Subbiah (2002-08)
      This article talks about issues related to both the quality and the quantity of science and science journals in India. It argues that different citation analyses will result in varied conclusions. It also compares such indices between India and China.
    • Science in India: On the Comments of Gupta and Garg (A Correspondence)

      Arunachalam, Subbiah (2003-02)
      This brief communication argues about the criteria to be used in evaluating the trend of scientific research, in India, and as presented by other authors on the subject.
    • The Sleeping Dragon Wakes Up: A Scientometric Analysis of the Growth of Science and the Usage of Journals in China

      Arunachalam, Subbiah; Singh, Udai N.; Sinha, Rita (1993-12)
      An overview of the journals used by scientists in post Cultural Revolution China is presented based on papers published by them in the 2649 journals indexed in Science Citation Index (SCI) for the period of 1981-85 as well as in journals covered by three editions of Current Contents (CC) for the second half of 1988. We have also looked at the frequency of citation of the papers indexed in SCI 1981-85, by way of cross-reference in other papers. Clearly, China's share of the world's journals literature and the share of Chinese language papers are increasing rapidly. However, Chinese work is infrequently cited. However, papers by Chinese scientists have rarely appeared in multidisciplinary journals such as Nature and Science. The data in the literature reinforce our conclusion that growth in China's share of the world's journal literature of science has not yet flattened off.
    • Tuberculosis Research in India and China: From Bibliometrics to Research Policy

      Arunachalam, Subbiah; Gunasekaran, Subbiah (2002-04)
      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.
    • Use of SCI-based Publication Counts - Correspondence

      Arunachalam, Subbiah (2003-11)
      This is a correspondence on an article by Karandikar and Sunder and an article by Pichappan (both published in Current Science 2003, issue 85) that present some misgivings about the use of Science Citation Index-based publication counts. Arunachalam discusses why the stance taken, the total number of papers published from a country should not be used as a science indicator, is extreme.