Does the web of science accurately represent chinese scientific performance?

China's Research Evaluation Reform: What are the Consequences for Global Science?

In the 1990s, China created a research evaluation system based on publications indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and on the Journal Impact Factor. Such system helped the country become the largest contributor to the scientific literature and increased the position of Chinese universities in international rankings. Although the system had been criticized by many because of its adverse effects, the policy reform for research evaluation crawled until the breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic, which accidently accelerates the process of policy reform. This paper highlights the background and principles of this reform, provides evidence of its effects, and discusses the implications for global science.

Combined Searches of Chinese Language and English Language Databases Provide More Comprehensive Data on the Distribution of Five Pest Thrips Species in China for Use in Pest Risk Assessment

Background: Globally, China and the USA are thought to present the greatest biosecurity threat from invasive species given the invasive species they already contain and their trade patterns. A proportion of Chinese scientific publications are published in Chinese language journals in Chinese characters, thus, they are not easily available to the international biosecurity community. Information in these journals may be important for invasive species biosecurity risk assessment. Methods: To assess the need for retrieving information from non-international databases, such as Chinese databases, we compared quantitative and qualitative information on the presence and distribution of five invasive pest thrips species (Frankliniella schultzei, Selenothrips rubrocinctus, Scirtothrips dorsalis, Thrips hawaiiensis, and Thrips palmi) in China, retrieved from an international English language database (Web of Science/WOS) and a Chinese language database (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure/CNKI). Such information is necessary for climate matching models which are used regularly for pest risk assessment. Results: Few publications on Frankliniella schultzei were found in either database. For the other species, more publications were sourced from CNKI than WOS. More publications on the provincial distribution of S. rubrocinctus and S. dorsalis in China were found in CNKI than the Crop Protection Compendium (CPC); the two sources had equivalent publications on T. palmi and T. hawaiiensis. The combined provincial distributional data from WOS, CNKI and CPC for the four species provided distribution records at a higher latitude than a recently published checklist—information that is important for optimised climate matching. Additionally, CNKI provided sub-provincial distributional data not available in CPC that will enable a more refined approach for climate matching. Data on the relative proportion of publications found in different databases were constant over time. Conclusions: This study, focusing on pest distributional data, illustrates the importance of searching in Chinese databases in combination with standard searches in international databases, to gain a comprehensive understanding of invasive species for biosecurity risk assessment.

Cross-lingual citations in English papers: a large-scale analysis of prevalence, usage, and impact

Citation information in scholarly data is an important source of insight into the reception of publications and the scholarly discourse. Outcomes of citation analyses and the applicability of citation-based machine learning approaches heavily depend on the completeness of such data. One particular shortcoming of scholarly data nowadays is that non-English publications are often not included in data sets, or that language metadata is not available. Because of this, citations between publications of differing languages (cross-lingual citations) have only been studied to a very limited degree. In this paper, we present an analysis of cross-lingual citations based on over one million English papers, spanning three scientific disciplines and a time span of three decades. Our investigation covers differences between cited languages and disciplines, trends over time, and the usage characteristics as well as impact of cross-lingual citations. Among our findings are an increasing rate of citations to publications written in Chinese, citations being primarily to local non-English languages, and consistency in citation intent between cross- and monolingual citations. To facilitate further research, we make our collected data and source code publicly available.

Gaps, biases, and future directions in research on the impacts of anthropogenic land-use change on aquatic ecosystems: a topic-based bibliometric analysis

Anthropogenic land use change (ALUC) satisfies human needs but also impacts aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems are intrinsically linked with terrestrial landscapes, an association that is already recognized as a key factor to address future research and effective governance. However, the complexity and range of the impact of ALUC in aquatic ecosystems have been fundamental challenges and have implicitly routed the analysis to particular segments, drivers, management, or effects of the theme. In this study, we present an attempt to frame the subject in a broader context through a topic-based bibliometric analysis. Our aim is to identify possible biases and gaps in the current scientific literature and detect the main topics that have characterized the theme. Our results show an unequal distribution of articles by country when we analyzed the authors' affiliation and also a slight increase in contributions from social and economic disciplines, although they are still underrepresented. Moreover, we distinguish topics whose prevalence seems to change, especially those topics where the use of scenario analysis and multi-stressors are considered. We discuss the main biases and gaps revealed by our results, concluding that future studies on the impact of ALUC on aquatic ecosystems should better integrate social and economic disciplines and expand geographic frontiers.

Comparing like with like: China ranks first in SCI-indexed research articles since 2018

China's rising in scientific research output is impressive. The academic community is curious about the time when the cross-over in the number of annual scientific publication production between China and the USA can happen. By using Web of Science Core Collection's Science Citation Index Expanded database, this study finds that China still ranks the second in the production of SCI-indexed publications in 2019 but may leapfrog the USA to be the first in 2020 or 2021, if all document types are considered. Comparatively, China has already overtaken the USA and been the largest SCI-indexed original research article producer since 2018. However, China still lags behind the USA regarding the number of review paper production. In general, quantitative advantage does not equal quality or impact advantage. We think that the USA will continue to be the global scientific leader for a long time.