The Nature Publishing Group has just published its 2012 publishing index for the Asia-Pacific region. The index is a picture of high-quality research output from the region and ranks institutions and countries based on their publications in Nature journals.
[The index is based on an article’s corrected count (CC) — a calculation that takes into account the number of affiliated institutions per author and the percentage of authors per institution. All authors are factored to have contributed equally to each article. The maximum CC for any article is 1.0. The overall CC for a country/territory reflects the sum of the corrected counts of all institutions in that region.]
During 2012, Japan, traditionally the leader in the region and still on top, saw close competition from China in terms of research output. Japan was at number one (398 articles, CC: 233.87), closely followed by China (303 articles, CC: 150.02) and then Australia (223 articles, CC: 68.26).
More here on how each country in the region is doing as seen through the lens of Nature journals.
My area of interest in the index was India and where the country stands in the region. India comes in at number seven, exactly where it was the previous year (2011), sandwiched between Taiwan (number 6) and New Zealand (number 8). However, the number of papers published from India in Nature journals has gone down from 30 to 25 in this period.
According to the index, India is particularly strong in the life sciences. Three of the country’s best institutions were ranked within the top 100 in the Asia-Pacific region on the basis of publications in this field. They are the Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology in Delhi at rank no. 56, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai (rank 78) and the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi (rank 82).
On where the science and research scene in the country stands, here’s quoting from a summary in the index:
“The country’s (India’s) science effort has blown hot and cold over the past five years, in some way reflecting the relationship at home between its ambitious scientific plans and its struggle with poverty.
The country’s Corrected Count (CC) is prone to fluctuation: in 2009, India had a CC of 6.84, well over double that of Taiwan. The next year this had plummeted to 1.22 — below that of Bangladesh — only to reach a new high in 2011 of 8.53. In 2012, however, the CC fell again, to 8.24.
This uneven research output reflects an inconsistency in government priority for science. The budget of March 2012 was disappointing, particularly as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had previously raised expectations by suggesting that India should double the proportion of GDP spent on R&D. In the end, however, the budget only provided for a 5% increase, about half the rate of inflation, leaving research outlays at around 1% of GDP.
There were bright spots for India’s science community, such as the announcement of a plan to launch a satellite to orbit Mars in late 2013. The government also outlined a five-year plan earmarking US$24 billion for R&D in six key scientific departments. This is more than 2.5 times what the country had spent on science over the previous five-year period.
India’s economic boom is slowing — growing by 5.5% last year, the lowest rate since 2004. Science and technology, expressed through improved agriculture, increased energy efficiency, better infrastructure and higher levels of innovation, are expected to provide a boost. But the value of innovation is sometimes questioned. A former chair of the Indian Space Research Organisation, G. Madhavan Nair, described the Mars venture as “a half-baked mission being attempted in undue haste with misplaced objectives”. Others consider it an unnecessary expense in a country where many children are malnourished and homes lack sanitation.
Last July, India suffered the world’s biggest electricity blackout and, according to the OECD, a quarter of the population still has no access to power. Yet many oppose, on environmental grounds, the 300 proposed Himalayan dams, which would provide much-needed power. In agricultural science too there are mixed messages. In October, the science minister, S. Jaipal Reddy, cast doubt on the future of genetic engineering. “The science is not clear,” he said, in response to the proposal set out by a panel of scientists which was appointed by India’s Supreme Court. The panel recommended a 10-year moratorium on trials of GM crops after opposition to the method. The court is hearing a case to stop GM trials in which the government itself is a defendant.”
Here’s hoping 2013 will be a better year for India in terms of scientific output and research papers in Nature journals.