Author
Abstract
The objective of the study is to evaluate the scientific dependence of science systems through the Scientific Dependence Index (SDI) by analyzing the international collaboration dynamics of Cuba, South Africa, and the United Kingdom (UK), logistic growth models, research productivity trends, and top collaborating countries. These nations represent different research system sizes: a small, restricted system (Cuba), a medium-sized developing system (South Africa), and a large, well-funded system (UK). Descriptive statistics indicate that while Cuba’s scientific output peaked in 2020, it declined in 2024. In contrast, South Africa experienced continuous growth in publications, with a significant rise in collaborations with Nigeria and India, indicating the strengthening of South-South partnerships. The UK remains a global leader in scientific output, though post-2020 trends suggest a slight decline in U.S. collaborations, likely influenced by geopolitical factors such as Brexit. The SDI analysis reveals distinct patterns of international collaboration dependence, with Cuba reaching a high saturation level ( $$K = 0.943$$ K = 0.943 ), South Africa showing steady integration ( $$K = 0.881$$ K = 0.881 ), and the UK maintaining a balanced collaboration strategy ( $$K = 0.827$$ K = 0.827 ). The results underscore the fundamental role of international collaborations in scientific progress, regardless of research system size. Furthermore, the SDI metrics and logistic growth modeling developed provide valuable tools for national research policy planning and strategic decision-making. These findings highlight the need for enhancing domestic research capacity, fostering regional partnerships, and monitoring geopolitical shifts in scientific collaboration to ensure sustainable and competitive national research ecosystems.
Suggested Citation
Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo, 2025.
"Global ties in science: a scientometric approach to international collaboration dependence,"
Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(7), pages 3903-3928, July.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05363-6
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05363-6
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05363-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.