Identification of Research Growth and Decline in Countries Based on the Growth Rate of SCI Paper Citation Frequency

4.1 Analysis of the Relationship Between National Research Output and International Collaboration Papers

This study conducted a correlation analysis using the number of research papers and the number of international collaboration papers indexed in the Web of Science to understand the strength and direction of the linear relationship between these variables. The goal was to examine how national research productivity is associated with international collaboration activities, specifically whether an increase in one variable correlates with an increase or decrease in the other. Additionally, regression analysis was performed to quantitatively assess the impact of national research output on international collaboration papers and to develop a predictive model for this relationship. This analysis aimed to provide a clearer understanding of the interdependence between the two variables and to predict changes in one based on changes in the other.

The results showed that the correlation coefficient ranged from -0.0935 to -0.3937, indicating a weak negative correlation. This suggests that countries with a higher share of global research output tend to have a slightly lower share of global international collaboration papers. The weak negative correlation implies that strong connections between national research productivity and international collaboration activities may not exist. It also suggests that highly productive countries may not necessarily engage heavily in producing international collaboration papers.

The regression analysis combining all years showed a slope of -0.7871 and an intercept of 40.7229. The negative slope (-0.7871) indicates a negative linear relationship between national research output and international collaboration papers. Figure 1 illustrates the linear relationship and regression line, showing that an increase in a country’s share of global research output is associated with a decrease in its share of international collaboration papers. This trend may reflect that some countries focus more on domestic research and perceive a relatively lower need for international collaboration.

Fig. 1.

Correlation between research output and international collaboration by country

In summary, the correlation and regression analyses confirmed a weak negative relationship between the two variables. This finding highlights that the degree of international collaboration can vary depending on national research productivity and may be influenced by a complex set of factors. These results underscore that highly productive countries may not always prioritize international collaboration, pointing to the diversity in research strategies and priorities among nations.

4.2 Analysis of Global Share in National Research Output

The shifts in the global market share of scientific publications have significantly transformed the landscape of major scientific contributors over the past decades. This analysis examines the changes in the global publication shares of countries and regions from 1980 to 2023 to explore new trends and dynamics in scientific research. Table 1 investigates the global share of research output by country, identifying the top 10 countries with rapid growth and the bottom 10 countries with significant declines. It highlights each country’s change in market share (MarketShare_Change) and its classification as growth or decline (Change_Type). Similarly, Table 2 examines the global share of international collaboration papers, identifying the top 10 countries with rapid growth and the bottom 10 countries with declines, presenting their market share changes and classifications. Through this analysis, the study uncovers emerging patterns in global scientific research contributions, revealing regions and countries driving growth and those experiencing decline. These results provide insights into shifts in the global research ecosystem and contribute to understanding the strategic focus of countries in maintaining or improving their scientific standing.

Table 1.

Top 10 Countries with Rapid Growth and Decline in Global Share (%) of National Research Output

Table 2.

Top 10 Countries with Rapid Growth and Decline in Global Share (%) of International Collaboration Papers

The analysis reveals that countries in Asia and the Middle East are rapidly growing in their contribution to scientific publications, while traditional Western scientific powerhouses are experiencing a relative decline in global share. Among the countries with significant growth, China stands out due to its continuous investment in research and development (R&D) and strong national support. Recognizing science and technology as critical components of economic growth, China has become one of the fastest-growing contributors to global scientific research. South Korea has also emerged as a key scientific hub in Asia, driven by substantial investments in science and engineering and the achievements of its universities and research institutions. Similarly, India has increased its global share in scientific publications through active investment in higher education and research infrastructure. In the Middle East, countries like Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Iran are expanding their influence on global science through policies that promote research and innovation. Saudi Arabia, in particular, is enhancing its research environment and increasing support for innovation, while countries like Brazil in South America are also improving their global share through government-led scientific development. In contrast, traditional leaders in scientific research, such as Western countries, have experienced a relative decline in their global share.

The United States remains a major contributor to global science; however, its relative share has declined as Asian countries have significantly increased their contributions. This trend is particularly evident when comparing the U.S. with China, which has seen a dramatic rise in scientific publication output. To maintain its position as a leading scientific powerhouse, the U.S. needs to adopt additional strategic measures. Similarly, Japan, once a dominant scientific leader in Asia, has experienced slower growth due to a combination of concentrated research efforts and an economic slowdown. European nations, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, have also witnessed a decline in their global share of scientific contributions. These countries face new challenges in maintaining their scientific influence amidst competition from rapidly growing nations in Asia and the Middle East. These shifts highlight a global realignment in the landscape of scientific research. Historically dominated by Western nations, the center of global scientific activity is now becoming more multipolar, with Asia and the Middle East emerging as key players. This trend underscores the close connection between economic development and advancements in science and technology. Countries with strong economic growth tend to invest more in scientific research, which, in turn, leads to increased scientific publication output. Strategic investment and support in research have proven to significantly influence a country’s scientific contributions, and this pattern is expected to continue in the future.

In conclusion, the growth of scientific contributions from Asia and the Middle East reflects the recognition of science and technology as critical drivers of national development. To remain competitive, established scientific powerhouses must make sustained and strategic investments in research and innovation. Furthermore, a new approach is needed to strengthen global collaboration and competitiveness in scientific research. This analysis provides valuable insights for nations seeking to maintain their competitiveness and achieve better research outcomes in an evolving global scientific landscape. It also validates the findings based on the data presented earlier on the “Top 10 Countries with Rapid Growth and Decline in Global Share (%) of National Research Output” and “Top 10 Countries with Rapid Growth and Decline in Global Share (%) of International Collaboration Papers.”

Based on the above analysis, Research Question 1 was validated. To validate this, countries included in both datasets were compared, and the consistency of change types and directions was examined. As a result, the countries that were commonly included were Saudi Arabia, South Korea, the USSR, Russia, Türkiye, and Iran. Among them, Saudi Arabia was classified as HighGrowth in both publication share and international collaboration share, showing consistency with the research question. In the case of South Korea, although it was classified as HighGrowth in publication share, it was classified as HighDecline in international collaboration share, which contradicts the research question. Similarly, the USSR was classified as HighDecline in both publication share and international collaboration share, aligning with the research question. Russia, on the other hand, was classified as HighGrowth in publication share but HighDecline in international collaboration share, showing inconsistency. Türkiye was also classified as HighGrowth in publication share but HighDecline in international collaboration share, which does not support the research question. Lastly, Iran was classified as HighGrowth in publication share but HighDecline in international collaboration share, which also contradicts the research question.

As a result of the analysis, Research Question 1 was consistent with some countries, such as Saudi Arabia and the USSR, but inconsistent with the majority of countries, including South Korea, Russia, Türkiye, and Iran. This indicates that the trends of increase or decrease in national publication share and international collaboration share do not align in many cases, making it difficult to generalize Research Question 1. Therefore, it can be concluded that a higher national publication share does not necessarily lead to a higher international collaboration share.

4.3 Analysis of the 5-Year Average Citations per Paper by Country

Following the analysis of national publication shares and international collaboration shares, the 5-year average citations per paper by country were analyzed. This analysis identified countries with high 5-year average citation rates (top growing countries) and those with low growth rates (top declining countries), and the implications of these findings were explored. Table 3 presents the top growing countries in terms of 5-year average citations per paper, along with their average growth rates and the number of citations per paper for the period 2019–2023. Table 4 displays the top declining countries in terms of 5-year average citations per paper, their average growth rates, and the number of citations per paper for the same period.

Table 3.

5-Year Period Top Growing Countries

Table 4.

5-Year Period Top Declining Countries

The analysis of the Top Growing Countries (5-Year Period) highlights significant trends in the growth of research impact among various nations. Lithuania emerges as the leader with an average growth rate of 54.54%, achieving 8.85 citations per paper. Although the citation rate is moderate, the rapid growth underscores the country’s improving research performance over the period. Similarly, Latvia, with a growth rate of 34.91% and 11.27 citations per paper, demonstrates both strong growth and a relatively high citation rate, reflecting its rising research influence.

Kazakhstan shows notable progress with a growth rate of 25.70% and 8.61 citations per paper, indicating fast growth despite a slightly lower citation rate. Slovakia, with a growth rate of 21.82% and 8.25 citations per paper, demonstrates steady performance, while Slovenia, at 15.82% growth and 10.23 citations per paper, maintains a balanced position with a mid-level citation rate.

Estonia, with a growth rate of 13.42%, achieves the highest citation rate among the top growing countries at 15.48 citations per paper, highlighting its substantial research impact. Czechoslovakia, despite a growth rate of 13.32%, faces challenges in sustaining its research impact due to data limitations, with 0 citations recorded per paper. Luxembourg exhibits a growth rate of 8.73% and 13.00 citations per paper, reflecting stable research performance.

Vietnam, with a growth rate of 8.62% and 12.37 citations per paper, shows steady progress and a reliable citation rate. Singapore, at a growth rate of 8.26%, achieves the highest citation rate of 17.09 citations per paper, signifying its dominant research influence and consistent excellence.

This analysis reveals the diverse strengths of the top growing countries, with some excelling in rapid growth and others maintaining high citation performance, illustrating their increasing prominence in the global research landscape.

The analysis of the Top Declining Countries (5-Year Period) provides meaningful insights into countries with low growth rates but significant citation impact. The United States, for instance, recorded a growth rate of only 2.91%, but achieved 11.05 citations per paper, indicating the presence of numerous influential publications. Sweden exhibited a growth rate of 3.30%, with an impressive 12.94 citations per paper, highlighting its strong research impact. Switzerland, with the same growth rate of 3.30%, achieved an even higher citation rate of 14.13 citations per paper, demonstrating exceptional academic influence. Japan, on the other hand, showed a growth rate of 3.35% and a citation rate of 8.64 per paper, which places it at a moderate level of influence. Denmark recorded a growth rate of 3.47% with a notable citation rate of 13.95 per paper, underscoring its research relevance. Similarly, the United Kingdom achieved a growth rate of 3.48% and a citation rate of 12.18 per paper, which is considerably high. The Netherlands demonstrated a growth rate of 3.64% and a citation rate of 13.73 per paper, maintaining significant research impact despite a relatively low growth rate. Israel, with a growth rate of 3.68% and a citation rate of 10.78 per paper, exhibited above-average academic influence. Norway recorded a growth rate of 3.80%, with 11.82 citations per paper, reflecting steady performance. Finally, Germany (Federal Republic of Germany) achieved a growth rate of 3.81% and a citation rate of 11.38 per paper, indicating consistent research influence over time.

Building on this analysis, Research Question 2 was validated by comparing the average citations per paper and growth rates for each country. This aimed to determine whether countries with high average citation counts continued to experience growth in their influence. The validation process revealed the following findings. First, in the case of the Top Growing Countries, countries with high citation impact, such as Singapore with 17.09 citations per paper, as well as Estonia and Luxembourg with citation rates of 15.48 and 13.00 respectively, demonstrated not only strong citation performance but also sustained growth rates. These results suggest a positive correlation between high citation rates and growth, supporting Research Question 2. Second, the analysis of the Top Declining Countries examined whether countries with low growth rates but high average citations could sustain their influence. Countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, and the Netherlands, which all recorded over 13 citations per paper, continue to maintain significant academic impact despite their stagnating or low growth rates. This indicates that while high citation rates are an indicator of strong research influence, they do not necessarily guarantee sustained growth, thereby providing a mixed validation of Research Question 2.

In conclusion, the findings partially support the hypothesis that countries with high average citations tend to expand their citation influence. However, there are cases where high citation counts are sustained even without corresponding growth rates. This indicates that while high average citation rates often correlate with expanded influence, this trend is not universal and can vary depending on the specific research environment and academic disciplines.

4.4 Analysis of Growth and Decline in Average Citations per Paper by Standard Research Fields for Major Countries

The Web of Science categorizes research outputs into 22 standard research fields. This analysis focused on identifying countries that demonstrated either growth or decline in their annual average citations per paper across these fields and examined the characteristics of these trends.

Using annual average citation data for each field, the analysis highlighted key performers. Table 5 provides a list of countries with the highest average growth rates in their respective fields (Standard field name) and showcases their research progress. The findings reveal areas where nations are excelling and expanding their influence, offering insights into the evolving dynamics of global academic contributions.

Table 5.

Countries with the Highest Growth Rates in Average Citations per Paper by Standard Research Fields

This dataset highlights the countries with the highest growth rates in each standard research field, along with their corresponding averages. A high growth rate indicates that a country has significantly increased its research activity within a particular field. The data shows that Russia stands out across numerous fields, recording exceptional growth rates such as 395.80% in Microbiology, 158.57% in Immunology, and 178.32% in Engineering. Additionally, Russia demonstrates strong growth in fields like Chemistry, Environment & Ecology, Neuroscience & Behavior, Physics, and Space Science, reflecting its comprehensive advancements in scientific research. Slovakia has shown remarkable progress in Biology & Biochemistry, achieving a growth rate of 99.20%, which highlights its active research development in this domain. Similarly, China Mainland demonstrates impressive growth in Computer Science with 54.26% and an extraordinary 349.92% in Multidisciplinary Research, indicating a significant expansion of cross-disciplinary research initiatives. South Korea recorded growth rates of 33.62% in Molecular Biology & Genetics and 44.46% in Psychiatry & Psychology, showcasing its active focus on these areas. Slovenia achieved a growth rate of 51.19% in Clinical Medicine, highlighting advancements in medical research. Colombia, with a growth rate of 58.03% in Geosciences, illustrates growing interest and investment in earth science research. In Pharmacology & Toxicology, Latvia reached a growth rate of 52.85%, reflecting a strong engagement in this field. Luxembourg reported a growth rate of 32.69% in Materials Science, showing steady research development. The Czech Republic achieved a growth rate of 48.52% in Economics & Business, signaling its increasing focus on economic and business studies.

In summary, these results show that many countries are increasing their investments in diverse scientific and social science fields. Russia demonstrates particularly remarkable growth across multiple fields, including Microbiology, Engineering, and Physics, signifying its wide-ranging scientific development. Other nations, such as China, South Korea, Slovenia, and Colombia, are also displaying notable advancements in their respective areas of research.

On the other hand, Table 6 provides a list of countries with the lowest average growth rates in standard research fields. These countries show a decline in their average citations per paper, with negative growth rates reflecting a decrease in research impact or activity in specific fields.

Table 6.

Countries with the Lowest Growth Rates in Average Citations per Paper by Standard Research Fields

The analysis of the above data reveals that the United States exhibited the highest decline rates across multiple standard research fields. Notably, it showed a decrease of -1.879% in Agricultural Sciences, -1.348% in Biology & Biochemistry, -3.155% in Clinical Medicine, -4.368% in Computer Science, and -3.488% in Engineering. These results suggest that research activity in the United States has decreased significantly across various scientific fields. Japan recorded the highest decline rates in Chemistry (-1.821%) and Pharmacology & Toxicology (-1.725%), indicating a possible reduction in research investment or output in these fields. Similarly, Israel experienced a decline of -3.040% in Economics & Business, reflecting reduced research activity in this area. Slovakia showed a decline of -2.834% in Environment & Ecology, while Sweden experienced a decline of -2.716% in Immunology, indicating a reduction in research activity in immunology. Russia recorded decline rates of -1.835% in Materials Science and -2.162% in Molecular Biology & Genetics. The decrease in molecular biology and genetics suggests that Russia’s focus on these fields may have diminished. Luxembourg exhibited significant declines across multiple fields, with the most dramatic reductions observed in Multidisciplinary Research (-27.88%) and Space Science (-13.33%). These figures indicate a sharp reduction in research activity in these domains. Canada also experienced a decline of -1.703% in Plant & Animal Science, further illustrating a decrease in research intensity.

In summary, Luxembourg saw a steep decline in multidisciplinary and space science research, while the United States showed a downward trend across several major scientific fields. These results may reflect reductions in research investments or shifts in national research priorities in these countries. Based on this analysis, the validation results for Research Question 3 are as follows. To validate this research question, the growth or decline trends of specific countries across standard research fields were examined using the data provided in Table 5 and Table 6. The results show that certain countries, such as Russia, China, and Slovakia, have demonstrated notable growth trends in specific fields. This confirms that research intensity and focus vary by field across countries. Therefore, this study contributes to understanding national research strategies by analyzing the concentration and trends of research in specific fields. It highlights how countries prioritize certain research areas and provides insights that can inform national research policy and investment decisions.