On the challenges ahead of spatial scientometrics focusing on the city level
| Pages | 67-87 |
| Date | 20 November 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2019-0152 |
| Published date | 20 November 2019 |
| Author | György Csomós |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Information behaviour & retrieval,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management |
On the challenges ahead of
spatial scientometrics focusing
on the city level
György Csomós
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
Abstract
Purpose –Spatial bibliometrics and scientometrics have traditionally focused on examining both country
and regional levels; however, in recent years, numerous spatial analyses on the city level have been carried
out. While city-level scientometric analyses have gained popularity among policymakers and statistical/
economic research organizations, researchers in the field of bibliometrics are divided regarding whether it is
possible to observe the spatial unit “city”through bibliometric and scientometric tools. The purpose of this
paper is to reveal the most significant challenges ahead of spatial scientometrics focusing on the city level by
examining relevant scientometric studies.
Design/methodology/approach –This analysis involves the most significant spatial scientometric studies
focusing on the city level and carefully examines how they collect bibliometric and/or scientometric data,
what methodologies they employ to process bibliometric data and most importantly, how they approach the
spatial unit “city”.
Findings –After systematically scrutinizing relevant studies in the field, three major problems have been
identified: there is no standardized method of how cities should be defined and how metropolitan areas should
be delineated; there is no standardized method of how bibliometric and scientometric data on the city level
should be collected and processed; and it is not clearly defined how cities can profit from the results of
bibliometric and scientometric analysis focusing on them.
Originality/value –This is the first study that compiles a “database”of scientometric studies focusing on
the city level. The paper not only reveals major challenges ahead of city level spatial analysis but
recommends some possible solution as well.
Keywords City, Counting method, Delineation method, Metropolitan area, Science system,
Spatial scientometrics
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
As globalization has intensified over the last five decades, large global systems such as
trade and manufacturing have become even more integrated. International science has also
witnessed deep integration (Gazni et al., 2012; Georghiou, 1998). Due to the rapid
development of information and communication technologies (primarily that of the internet),
and cheap air travel, physical barriers in the way of international research collaboration
have been removed to a significant degree (Hoekman, 2012; Pan et al., 2012). The
geographical pattern of international research collaboration has significantly changed over
time, and newly emerging countries (China in the first place) have positioned themselves at
the focal points of global science. Measuring and evaluating changes in international
research collaboration and the scientific performance of institutions and countries through
the prism of bibliometric and scientometric data have become a key. The examination of the
spatial aspect of science on the basis of bibliometric and scientometric data is in the scope of
spatial scientometrics, a quantitative research field being positioned between the fields of
scientometrics and geography (i.e. the geography of science) (Frenken, Hardeman and
Hoekman, 2009; Gao et al., 2013; Hoekman, 2012). Parallel with the globalization of science,
spatial scientometric studies have become more common. As demonstrated by Frenken,
Hardeman and Hoekman (2009), spatial scientometrics initially involved the country level in
the research focus –the works performed by Narin and Carpenter (1975) and Frame et al.
(1977) are considered particularly important in the field –and the majority of spatial
Aslib Journal of Information
Management
Vol. 72 No. 1, 2020
pp. 67-87
© Emerald PublishingLimited
2050-3806
DOI 10.1108/AJIM-06-2019-0152
Received 9 June 2019
Revised 5 September 2019
Accepted 15 October 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2050-3806.htm
67
Challenges
ahead of
spatial
scientometrics
scientometric studies have still been focusing on examining the country level (see,
e.g. Almeida et al., 2009; Bornmann et al., 2018; Gazni et al., 2012; Glänzel, 2001; Horta and
Veloso, 2007; Lee et al., 2011; Leydesdorff et al., 2014; Miao et al., 2018; OECD and
SCImago Research Group (CSIC), 2016; Stephan and Levin, 2001; Wang et al., 2017). Besides
country-level scientometric analyses, based on experiences gained from them, many spatial
scientometric studies have been carried out with sublevel territorial units (e.g. federal states,
provinces and NUTS regions[1]) in focus. This spatial scientometric approach has become
widespread in countries with a hierarchized spatial structure and where the sublevel spatial
division is endowed with a strong administrative function (see, e.g., the case of Canada:
Godin and Ippersiel, 1996; China: He et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2009; Italy:
Abramo et al., 2014; Abramo and D’Angelo, 2015; the Netherlands: Ponds et al., 2007; and the
USA: Carvalho and Batty, 2006; Hohmann et al., 2018; Kamalski and Plume, 2013;
Thompson, 2018). Some studies go beyond focusing on formal regions (sublevel spatial
divisions) and examine the scientometric characteristics of city-regions that were created for
special analytical purposes (see, e.g. Bornmann and Waltman, 2011; Grossetti et al., 2014;
Maisonobe, Jégou and Eckert, 2018; Matthiessen and Schwarz, 1999; Matthiessen et al.,
2002). Since the mid-1960s, urban geographers and regional economists have been paying
high attention to cities with a special role in the global economy (labelling them as world/
global cities) and the networks being created by them (Alderson and Beckfield, 2004;
Borchert, 1978; Cohen, 1981; Friedmann, 1986; Godfrey and Zhou, 1999; Hall, 1966; Heenan,
1977; Hymer, 1972; Sassen, 1991; Taylor, 2001; Wheeler, 1985), while spatial scientometric
research focusing on the city level has only been given impetus since the beginning of the
2000s, after the publication of Matthiessen and Schwarz’s (1999) pioneering work. However,
in recent years, spatial scientometric studies examining the position of cities in global
science have become widespread. A significant part of global research activity has
traditionally been concentrated in certain cities and their metropolitan hinterlands
(Van Noorden, 2010). These cities are considered to be the most powerful magnets for
attracting members of the creative class (e.g. scientists, researchers and engineers) and
innovative companies. Combined with a large amount of research funds available, this will
make these cities the most significant location of new knowledge production and
international centres of innovation. This process can be characterized by a self-reinforcing
upward spiral. In recent years, the global science system has become more fragmented and
diverse, due to the fact that powerful emerging cities have appeared in the vertices (Csomós,
2018a; Maisonobe, Jégou and Cabanac, 2018; Nature Index, 2018), forcing the traditional
scientific centres to compete with them (to acquire globally available research funds, for
instance). This new approach within the frame of spatial scientometrics focuses on how
cities participate in global science. Some relevant works are listed below:
•The paper authored by Matthiessen and Schwarz (1999) presents an analysis of scientific
strength by output produced by authors from the “greater”urban regions of Europe.
•Bornmann et al. (2011) and Bornmann and Leydesdorff (2011, 2012) identify and map
cities which are considered to be centres of excellence in scientific research on the
basis of the size and frequency of the production of highly cited papers.
•Bornmann and de Moya-Anegón (2018) map German cities, with most papers
belonging to the 1 per cent most frequently cited papers, within their subject area and
publication year. Bornmann and de Moya-Anegón (2019) detect hot and cold spots in
the USA based on bibliometric data produced by institutions.
•Maisonobe et al. (2016, 2017) investigate cities’publication output and collaboration
network from different aspects while Grossetti et al. (2014) examine the global and
national deconcentration of scientific activities through the prism of cities.
68
AJIM
72,1
To continue reading
Request your trial