During the last two decades, India has emerged as a major knowledge producer in the world, however different reports put it at different ranks, varying from 3rd to 9th places. The recent commissioned study reports of Department of Science and Technology (DST) done by Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics, rank India at 5thand 9th places, respectively. On the other hand, an independent report by National Science Foundation (NSF) of United States (US), ranks India at 3rd place on research output in Science and Engineering area. Interestingly, both, the Elsevier and the NSF reports use Scopus data, and yet surprisingly their outcomes are different. This article, therefore, attempts to investigate as to how the use of same database can still produce different outcomes, due to differences in methodological approaches. The publication counting method used and the subject selection approach are the two main exogenous factors identified to cause these variations. The implications of the analytical outcomes are discussed with special focus on policy perspectives.
翻译:在过去20年中,印度已成为世界的主要知识生产者,但不同的报告显示印度处于不同的层次,从第3位到第9位。最近委托Elsevier和Clarivate Analytics编写的科技部(DST)的研究报告分别将印度排在第5位。另一方面,美国国家科学基金会(NSF)的一份独立报告将印度排在第3位:科学和工程领域的研究成果。有趣的是,Elsevier和NSF报告都使用了Scopus数据,但令人惊讶的是,其结果却不同。因此,这一文章试图调查使用同一数据库如何仍会产生不同的结果,因为方法上的差异。所使用的出版物计数方法和主题选择方法是导致这些差异的两个主要外部因素。分析结果的影响特别侧重于政策观点。