Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Scientific Output, Underlying Factors, and Knowledge Dissemination

Bornmann, Haunschild, and Mutz’s (2021) article presents an innovative and methodologically rigorous investigation into the growth dynamics of modern science through a latent piecewise growth curve approach. Their work not only refines our quantitative understanding of scientific growth by integrating data from established (Web of Science and Scopus) and newer bibliographic databases (Dimensions and Microsoft Academic), but it also invites reflection on broader cultural, economic, political, and social implications of scientific progress.

Methodological and Quantitative Contributions

The authors employ segmented regression and latent growth curve models to dissect historical publication data over several centuries. By identifying distinct “segments” or phases—each corresponding to major economic and political epochs such as the Industrial Revolution, the World Wars, and the post-war period—the study reveals that scientific output does not grow uniformly over time. Instead, growth rates change in ways that reflect underlying societal shifts. This approach extends earlier scientometric studies (Bornmann & Mutz, 2015; Price, 1986) by using a multi-database strategy that enhances the robustness of historical estimations.

Economic Implications

One of the key findings is that the overall growth rate of scientific output is approximately 4.10% per year, corresponding to a doubling time of around 17.3 years. The authors’ comparative analysis with UK GDP data suggests that economic and scientific growth are interrelated, yet not perfectly coupled. This observation echoes the literature on the symbiotic relationship between economic development and research productivity (Salter & Martin, 2001; Fernald & Jones, 2014). From an economic perspective, the piecewise nature of growth implies that periods of rapid scientific expansion often coincide with—and may even help drive—phases of economic boom, while downturns in science can reflect broader economic contractions.

Political Dimensions

The study’s segmented model reveals that significant political events—such as the two World Wars—coincide with distinct slowdowns or alterations in scientific growth rates. These findings illustrate how political stability, conflict, and policy decisions (e.g., wartime resource allocation) influence the capacity for scientific production. This aligns with research on how political disruptions shape national science systems (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018) and underscores the importance of political context in understanding long-term trends in scientific innovation.

Cultural and Social Aspects

Culturally, the exponential increase in publication numbers reflects a transformation in academic practices and the global dissemination of knowledge. The digital revolution and the advent of comprehensive bibliographic databases have reshaped the way science is communicated—transforming scholarly culture from one of limited, institutionally mediated knowledge sharing to a more immediate, open, and globally accessible paradigm (Wang & Barabási, 2021). Socially, this expansion of scientific literature has profound implications for academic evaluation, collaboration networks, and the “publish or perish” culture that influences researchers’ careers. It also speaks to the democratization of knowledge, as increasing accessibility can potentially reduce disparities in the global circulation of scientific ideas (Merton, 1988).

Integration with Scholarly Literature

The article engages with seminal theories in the science of science, drawing on Price’s (1986) law of exponential growth and Merton’s (1988) conceptualization of scientific contribution. It advances the discussion initiated by Fortunato et al. (2018) on the dynamics of scientific development by offering a nuanced view that captures non-linear and segmented growth patterns. Furthermore, by comparing scientific growth to economic metrics (such as GDP), the authors contribute to interdisciplinary dialogues between scientometrics and econometrics—a connection that has important policy implications for investment in research and development.

Conclusion

Overall, Bornmann, Haunschild, and Mutz’s (2021) work is a substantial contribution to the literature on scientific growth. By employing advanced statistical techniques to model publication data across multiple databases, the study not only refines our understanding of how modern science expands but also highlights how this growth is intertwined with economic cycles, political events, cultural shifts, and social transformations. These insights have far‐reaching implications: they suggest that policies aimed at boosting scientific productivity must consider these multifaceted influences, and that future research should continue to explore the interplay between science, economy, politics, and culture.

References

Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Mutz, R. (2021). Growth rates of modern science: A latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8, 224. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w

Fernald, J. G., & Jones, D. (2014). Growth in science and economic performance. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23(2), 135–152.

Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C. T., Börner, K., Evans, J. A., Helbing, D., Milojević, S., … & Vespignani, A. (2018). Science of science. Science, 359(6379), eaao0185.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown Publishing Group.

Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

Price, D. J. de S. (1986). Little science, big science: Reflections on the development of modern science. Columbia University Press.

Salter, A., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509–532.

Wang, D., & Barabási, A.-L. (2021). The dynamical nature of innovation. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(3), 163–177.

[Edited by Pablo Markin. The initial draft has been generated using ChatGPT, OpenAI (February 18, 2025).]

[Support the Open Access Blog: https://ko-fi.com/theopenaccessblogs.]


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (February 18, 2025). Scientific Output, Underlying Factors, and Knowledge Dissemination. Open Access Blog. Retrieved March 24, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13c47


You may also like...