IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are CIVETS the next BRICs? A comparative analysis from scientometrics perspective


  • Yong Yi

    () (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Wei Qi

    () (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Dandan Wu

    () (University of Science and Technology of China)


Based on the concept that scientific research is an important component of a country’s knowledge-based economy, this study aims to answer the question “Are CIVETS the next BRICs” by comparing a series of scientometrics indicators using data from the Essential Science Indicators database and the World Bank Report 2009. The main findings are that at the country group level, there is no significant difference between CIVETS and BRICs in knowledge-based economy performance, scientific research quality and scientific research structure and that the number of scientific research papers is the clear gap between them. The results may be of use to find the answer to the question “Are CIVETS the next BRICs” at least from the perspective of scientometrics.

Suggested Citation

  • Yong Yi & Wei Qi & Dandan Wu, 2013. "Are CIVETS the next BRICs? A comparative analysis from scientometrics perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 615-628, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:94:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0791-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0791-9

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Li Ying Yang & Ting Yue & Jie Lan Ding & Tao Han, 2012. "A comparison of disciplinary structure in science between the G7 and the BRIC countries by bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 497-516, November.
    2. Ling-Chu Lee & Pin-Hua Lin & Yun-Wen Chuang & Yi-Yang Lee, 2011. "Research output and economic productivity: a Granger causality test," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 465-478, November.
    3. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2010. "Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 495-506, March.
    4. Tuan V. Nguyen & Ly T. Pham, 2011. "Scientific output and its relationship to knowledge economy: an analysis of ASEAN countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 107-117, October.
    5. Peter Vinkler, 2008. "Correlation between the structure of scientific research, scientometric indicators and GDP in EU and non-EU countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 237-254, February.
    6. André Frazão Helene & Pedro Leite Ribeiro, 2011. "Brazilian scientific production, financial support, established investigators and doctoral graduates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 677-686, November.
    7. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2008. "Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 257-271, February.
    8. Péter Vinkler, 2006. "Composite scientometric indicators for evaluating publications of research institutes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 629-642, September.
    9. Ping Zhou & Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2009. "Regional analysis on Chinese scientific output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 839-857, December.
    10. F. Moya-Anegón & V. Herrero-Solana, 1999. "Science in america latina: A comparison of bibliometric and scientific-technical indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 46(2), pages 299-320, October.
    11. Radhamany Sooryamoorthy, 2011. "Scientific publications of engineers in South Africa, 1975–2005," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 211-226, January.
    12. Carmen López-Illescas & Félix Moya-Anegón & Henk F. Moed, 2011. "A ranking of universities should account for differences in their disciplinary specialization," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 563-574, August.
    13. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cózar & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2009. "Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 761-774, September.
    14. Clara Calero-Medina & Carmen López-Illescas & Martijn S Visser & Henk F Moed, 2008. "Important factors when interpreting bibliometric rankings of world universities: an example from oncology," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 71-81, March.
    15. Caroline S. Wagner & Shing Kit Wong, 2012. "Unseen science? Representation of BRICs in global science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 1001-1013, March.
    16. Chan-Yuan Wong & Kim-Leng Goh, 2012. "The pathway of development: science and technology of NIEs and selected Asian emerging economies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 523-548, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Ugo Finardi, 2015. "Scientific collaboration between BRICS countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1139-1166, February.
    2. Sergey Shashnov & Maxim Kotsemir, 2018. "Research landscape of the BRICS countries: current trends in research output, thematic structures of publications, and the relative influence of partners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1115-1155, November.
    3. Tung Manh Ho & Hong Kong T. Nguyen & Thu-Trang Vuong & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2017. "On the Sustainability of Co-Authoring Behaviors in Vietnamese Social Sciences: A Preliminary Analysis of Network Data," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(11), pages 1-21, November.
    4. Daniel Fink & Youngsun Kwon & Jae Jeung Rho & Minho So, 2014. "S&T knowledge production from 2000 to 2009 in two periphery countries: Brazil and South Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 37-54, April.
    5. Aurora Calderón-Martínez & Enar Ruiz-Conde, 2015. "Leading emerging markets: capturing and diffusing scientific knowledge through research-oriented repositories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 907-930, September.
    6. Tung Manh Ho & Hong Kong Nguyen-To & Thu-Trang Vuong & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2017. "Social Network Sustainability Metrics: A Study of Co-authoring Behaviors in the Social Sciences, Using 2008-2017 Scopus Data for Vietnam," Working Papers CEB 17-027, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Manh-Toan Ho & Thu-Trang Vuong & Thanh-Hang Pham & Anh-Phuong Luong & Thanh-Nhan Nguyen & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2020. "The Internal Capability of Vietnam Social Sciences and Humanities: A Perspective from the 2008–2019 Dataset," Publications, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(2), pages 1-15, June.
    8. Houcemeddine Turki & Mohamed Ali Hadj Taieb & Mohamed Ben Aouicha & Ajith Abraham, 2020. "Nature or Science: what Google Trends says," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1367-1385, August.
    9. Ricardo Cartes-Velásquez & Carlos Manterola Delgado, 2014. "Bibliometric analysis of articles published in ISI dental journals, 2007–2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2223-2233, March.
    10. Houcemeddine Turki & Mohamed Ali Hadj Taieb & Mohamed Ben Aouicha & Ajith Abraham, 0. "Nature or Science: what Google Trends says," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 0, pages 1-19.
    11. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Tung Manh Ho & Thu-Trang Vuong & Ha Viet Nguyen & Nancy K. Napier & Hiep-Hung Pham, 2017. "Nemo Solus Satis Sapit : Trends of Research Collaborations in the Vietnamese Social Sciences, Observing 2008–2017 Scopus Data," Publications, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 5(4), pages 1-15, October.


    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:94:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0791-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.