The Globalization of Science: The Increasing Power of Individual Scientists

Marek Kwiek

arxiv: 2402.03313 · v2 · submitted 2023-12-09 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

The Globalization of Science: The Increasing Power of Individual Scientists

Marek Kwiek This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 04:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

keywords globalization of scienceinternational collaborationindividual scientistsnational science systemspublication trendscitation datadeveloping countries

0 comments

The pith

The research power of nations now depends on individual scientists' capacity for international collaboration rather than domestic or state-driven efforts.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that national science systems sit inside a larger global network where progress occurs through scientists' autonomous choices to collaborate across borders. Data spanning 2000-2020 indicate that nearly all growth in Western science comes from internationally co-authored papers while growth in developing countries comes from both international and domestic papers. This pattern implies that countries gain research strength mainly by enabling their scientists to join global networks rather than by expanding purely national output. The argument treats global science as a self-organizing system shaped by scientists' own rules instead of top-down national priorities.

Core claim

National science systems have become embedded in global science, so the research power of nations relies on the research power of individual scientists and their capacity to collaborate internationally and tap into the global networked science.

What carries the argument

The split between internationally co-authored publications (driving nearly all Western growth) and the combination of international plus domestic publications (driving developing-world growth) as the measurable indicators of globalization.

If this is right

Scientists embedded in national systems gain greater agency and self-regulation through global ties.
Nation-states must add the global level as a distinct layer in science policy alongside national structures.
New countries, institutions, and teams can enter the system through international networks rather than building domestic capacity first.
Global science operates as a bottom-up, curiosity-driven process that resists state direction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Policies that increase scientist mobility and cross-border funding access would likely raise national output more than equivalent domestic-only investments.
Smaller or emerging research nations could accelerate their standing by targeting specific global sub-networks instead of broad national expansion.
The observed pattern suggests that attempts to insulate national science from global flows would slow growth in both developed and developing contexts.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen publication, collaboration, and citation records from 2000-2020 capture the real drivers of globalization without large biases from database coverage changes or selection effects.

What would settle it

New data showing that domestic-only publications account for most growth in Western countries after 2000, or that international co-authorship shares have not risen in the developing world.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2402.03313 by Marek Kwiek.

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The top 25 countries can be clustered into low internationalization systems (such as Poland, Russia, Turkey, and India) and high internationalization systems (such as Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, the UK in Europe or Australia globally), with China in humanities and social sciences and the US in agricultural sciences and natural sciences slowly increasing their international collaboration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Collaboration (and publishing) patterns for all fields of research and development combined: powerful and increasing international collaboration at the expense of institutional collaboration, with stable national collaboration: top 25 global knowledge producers in 2020 (plus EU-28, EU-15, EU-13, OECD and the World), articles only, SciVal data, 2000–2020 (%) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The international collaboration rate (percentage of internationally collaborative publications) by field of research and development, top 25 global knowledge producers in 2020 (plus EU-28, EU-15, EU-13, OECD and the world), articles only, SciVal data, 2000–2020 (%). The differences in the international collaboration rate in the top 25 countries are reflected only to a certain extent in the differences betw… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The international collaboration rate (percentage of internationally collaborative publications), all fields of research and development combined, 25 biggest knowledge-producing universities in the top 25 global knowledge-producing countries (as of 2020), articles only, SciVal data, 2000–2020 (%). Apart from changing percentages over time, the internationalization of science is also reflected in publication… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Total (dark blue), domestic (green), internationally collaborative publications (left axis) and the percentage of domestic publications (right axis, red line) for the top 25 global knowledge producers (2000–2020) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) by publication type (internationally co-authored, nationally co-authored), articles only, self-citations included, average for the period 2000–2020, all fields of research and development combined. Finally, global science is characterized by different thickness of research pairings between countries and institutions: certain pairings emerge as clearly preferred, follow… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The network of internationally co-authored articles (in 2015–2020 combined), with only 25 most prolific pairs globally. Consequently, only edges with 59,148 (China-Canada) or more co-publications are displayed. The thickness of edges based on frequency of collaboration (left) and impact of collaboration as viewed through FWCI (right). 5. The Tensions of Global Science The rise of new scientific powers as … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

National science systems have become embedded in global science and countries do everything they can to harness global knowledge to national economic needs. However, accessing and using the riches of global knowledge can occur only through scientists. Consequently, the research power of nations relies on the research power of individual scientists. Their capacity to collaborate internationally and to tap into the global networked science is key. The constantly evolving, bottom-up, autonomous, self-regulating, and self-focused nature of global science requires deeper understanding; and the best way to understand its dynamics is to understand what drives academic scientists in their work. The idea that science remains a state-driven rather than curiosity-driven is difficult to sustain. In empirical terms, we describe the globalization of science using selected publication, collaboration, and citation data from 2000-2020. The globalization of science implies two different processes in two different system types: the growth of science in the Western world is almost entirely attributable to internationally co-authored publications; its growth in the developing world, in contrast, is driven by both internationally co-authored and domestic publications. Global network science opens incredible opportunities to new arrivals - countries as well as institutions and research teams. The global system is embedded in the rules created by scientists themselves and maintained as a self-organizing system and nation-states have another major level to consider in their science policies: the global level. Globalization of science provides more agency, autonomy, collegiality, and self-regulation to scientists embedded in national science structures and involved in global networks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper shows Western science growth from 2000-2020 is mostly international co-authorship while developing countries grow in both, but database coverage changes likely inflate the split and the individual-agency claim stays interpretive.

read the letter

The main observation is that Western countries' publication growth over 2000-2020 comes almost entirely from internationally co-authored papers, while developing countries show growth in both international and domestic output. The paper uses this to argue that national research power now depends on individual scientists' global ties rather than state direction alone. It draws on publication, collaboration, and citation data from standard sources to make the contrast between the two groups of countries. The descriptive split is presented plainly and could serve as background for policy discussions on how different systems connect to global networks. The data handling follows common bibliometric practice and the regional difference is easy to see. The coverage issue raised in the stress-test is a real limitation. Scopus and Web of Science added many journals during those years, and if the additions favor international teams the measured international share would rise mechanically. The paper does not report a fixed-journal series or any adjustment for coverage growth, so the attribution of Western growth to globalization versus database expansion cannot be taken as settled. The further step to claims about scientist autonomy, self-regulation, and the limits of state-driven science is not directly supported by the numbers; it is an interpretation layered on top of the trends. This work sits in scientometrics and science policy. Readers who track collaboration metrics or regional differences in output might find the updated counts worth seeing, but the paper does not introduce new methods or overturn prior findings. It is coherent on its own terms and the empirical description is worth referee scrutiny even if the interpretation needs tightening. A serious editor should send it for review rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that national science systems are embedded in global science, with nations harnessing global knowledge through individual scientists whose international collaborations are key. Using selected publication, collaboration, and citation data from 2000-2020, it describes two processes: Western science growth is almost entirely attributable to internationally co-authored publications, while developing-world growth is driven by both international and domestic publications. It concludes that global networked science opens opportunities, operates as a self-organizing system with scientist-driven rules, and grants more agency to scientists within national structures.

Significance. If the reported decomposition of growth drivers proves robust after methodological documentation and coverage controls, the work would add to scientometric understanding of globalization by documenting differential roles of international collaboration across country types and underscoring policy implications for engaging global networks. The emphasis on bottom-up, self-regulating aspects of science provides a counterpoint to state-centric views.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract (empirical description paragraph): the central claim decomposing national output growth into domestic vs. internationally co-authored components and attributing nearly all Western growth to the latter supplies no methods, database details (Scopus/WoS), classification rules for co-authorship, sample sizes, error estimates, or validation steps, rendering the Western/developing contrast impossible to assess.
[Abstract] Abstract (empirical description paragraph): the reported split between international and domestic drivers assumes stable database coverage over 2000-2020, yet no fixed-journal series, coverage-adjusted analysis, or discussion of secular changes in indexed journals (especially those favoring cross-border teams) is described; this assumption is load-bearing for the attribution of growth and could be confounded by coverage expansion.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract contains several run-on sentences and shifts between normative statements (e.g., 'the idea that science remains a state-driven rather than curiosity-driven is difficult to sustain') and empirical claims without clear separation.
[Abstract] Notation for 'internationally co-authored publications' and 'domestic publications' is used without an explicit definition or example of how fractional counting or full counting is applied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on the presentation of our empirical claims. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and robustness where needed.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (empirical description paragraph): the central claim decomposing national output growth into domestic vs. internationally co-authored components and attributing nearly all Western growth to the latter supplies no methods, database details (Scopus/WoS), classification rules for co-authorship, sample sizes, error estimates, or validation steps, rendering the Western/developing contrast impossible to assess.

Authors: We agree that the abstract's brevity omits key methodological details needed for immediate assessment. The full manuscript includes a dedicated Methods section specifying the primary data source (Scopus), the operational definition of international co-authorship (publications with authors affiliated to institutions in more than one country), overall sample sizes (covering millions of records from 2000-2020), and validation procedures such as cross-checks with WoS subsets. To address the concern, we will revise the abstract to include a concise statement on the data source and co-authorship classification, while explicitly referencing the Methods section for full details, sample sizes, and validation steps. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (empirical description paragraph): the reported split between international and domestic drivers assumes stable database coverage over 2000-2020, yet no fixed-journal series, coverage-adjusted analysis, or discussion of secular changes in indexed journals (especially those favoring cross-border teams) is described; this assumption is load-bearing for the attribution of growth and could be confounded by coverage expansion.

Authors: This point correctly identifies a potential confounding factor from database coverage changes. The manuscript relies on a major bibliographic database without an explicit fixed-journal panel or dedicated coverage-sensitivity analysis in the current text. In revision, we will add a brief discussion in the Methods section addressing secular changes in journal indexing, the implications for international vs. domestic attribution, and any robustness checks (such as restricting to persistently indexed journals where feasible). This will strengthen the load-bearing assumption. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely descriptive bibliometric analysis with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper contains no equations, derivations, predictions, or parameter-fitting steps. Its central claims are empirical observations drawn directly from Scopus/WoS publication, collaboration, and citation counts for 2000-2020. No self-citation is invoked to establish uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or load-bearing premises. The analysis is self-contained against the external database benchmarks it cites; any coverage-bias concerns are data-validity issues, not circularity. No step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is empirical and descriptive; the abstract invokes standard scientometric assumptions about what co-authorship and citation counts represent but introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

axioms (1)

domain assumption International co-authorship indicates tapping into global knowledge networks
Stated in the abstract as the mechanism linking individual collaboration capacity to national research power.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5792 in / 1224 out tokens · 27372 ms · 2026-05-24T04:51:35.971176+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, no. 497: 557–560. Buyalskaya, A., Gallo, M. and Camerer, C.F

work page 2013
[2]

Barnard, H., Cowan, R., Fernandez de Arroyabe Arranz, M., & Muller, M

The golden age of social science, PNAS February 2, 2021 118 (5) e2002923118. Barnard, H., Cowan, R., Fernandez de Arroyabe Arranz, M., & Muller, M. (2015). The role of global connectedness in the development of indigenous science in middle income countries. In The Handbook of Global Science, Technology, and Innovation (pp. 386-410), ed. Daniele Archibugi,...

work page 2021
[3]

A Century of Science: Globalization of Scientific Collaborations, Citations, and Innovations

“A Century of Science: Globalization of Scientific Collaborations, Citations, and Innovations.” KDD 2017 Applied Data Science, 1437-1446. Edelmann, A., Wolff, T., Montagne, D., Bail, C.A. (2020). “Computational Social Science and Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology, no. 46(1): 61-81. 32 Engels, A., & Ruschenburg, T

work page 2017
[4]

& Sethi, W

doi:10.3152/030234208x317160 Finkelstein, M. & Sethi, W

work page doi:10.3152/030234208x317160
[5]

Globalization of Scientific and Engineering Talent: International Mobility of Students, Workers, and Ideas and the World Economy

“Globalization of Scientific and Engineering Talent: International Mobility of Students, Workers, and Ideas and the World Economy.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(5): 393–406. doi:10.1080/10438590903432871 Glänzel, W

work page doi:10.1080/10438590903432871
[6]

Globalization of Science and International Scientific Collaboration: A Network Perspective

“Globalization of Science and International Scientific Collaboration: A Network Perspective.” Geoforum, no. 105: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.017 Hagstrom, W. O

work page doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.017 2019
[7]

National Ties of International Scientific Collaboration and Researcher Mobility Found in Nature and Science

“National Ties of International Scientific Collaboration and Researcher Mobility Found in Nature and Science.” Scientometrics, no. 110(2): 673–694. doi:10.1007/s11192- 016-2183-z King, R

work page doi:10.1007/s11192-
[8]

Gender Disparities in International Research Collaboration: A Large-Scale Bibliometric Study of 25,000 University Professors

“Gender Disparities in International Research Collaboration: A Large-Scale Bibliometric Study of 25,000 University Professors.” Journal of Economic Surveys. First published: 13 November 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12395. Leydesdorff, l., Wagner, CS

work page doi:10.1111/joes.12395 2020
[9]

The Research University in Transition: The Emerging Global Model

“The Research University in Transition: The Emerging Global Model.” Higher Education Policy, no. 21(1): 5–27. doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300175 Nielsen, M. W., & Andersen, J. P

work page doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300175
[10]

What do Citation Counts Measure? An Updated Review of Studies on Citations in Scientific Documents Published between 2006 and 2018

“What do Citation Counts Measure? An Updated Review of Studies on Citations in Scientific Documents Published between 2006 and 2018.” Scientometrics, no. 121: 1635–1684 Ulnicane, I

work page 2006
[11]

Towards a Multipolar Science World: Trends and Impact

“Towards a Multipolar Science World: Trends and Impact.” Scientometrics, no. 82: 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0045-7 Wagner, C. S

work page doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0045-7
[12]

Globalisation of Science in Kilometres

“Globalisation of Science in Kilometres.” Journal of Informetrics, no. 5(4): 574–582. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.003 Wang, D., Barabási, A.-L

work page doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.003 2011
[13]

The Science of Science: From the Perspective of Complex Systems

“The Science of Science: From the Perspective of Complex Systems.” Physics Reports, nos.714–715: 1-73. Short bio: Marek Kwiek is Professor and Chairholder, UNESCO Chair in Institutional Research and Higher Education Policy, and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences and Humanities (IAS), University of Poznan, Poland. His researc...

work page 2019

[1] [1]

Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, no. 497: 557–560. Buyalskaya, A., Gallo, M. and Camerer, C.F

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Barnard, H., Cowan, R., Fernandez de Arroyabe Arranz, M., & Muller, M

The golden age of social science, PNAS February 2, 2021 118 (5) e2002923118. Barnard, H., Cowan, R., Fernandez de Arroyabe Arranz, M., & Muller, M. (2015). The role of global connectedness in the development of indigenous science in middle income countries. In The Handbook of Global Science, Technology, and Innovation (pp. 386-410), ed. Daniele Archibugi,...

work page 2021

[3] [3]

A Century of Science: Globalization of Scientific Collaborations, Citations, and Innovations

“A Century of Science: Globalization of Scientific Collaborations, Citations, and Innovations.” KDD 2017 Applied Data Science, 1437-1446. Edelmann, A., Wolff, T., Montagne, D., Bail, C.A. (2020). “Computational Social Science and Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology, no. 46(1): 61-81. 32 Engels, A., & Ruschenburg, T

work page 2017

[4] [4]

& Sethi, W

doi:10.3152/030234208x317160 Finkelstein, M. & Sethi, W

work page doi:10.3152/030234208x317160

[5] [5]

Globalization of Scientific and Engineering Talent: International Mobility of Students, Workers, and Ideas and the World Economy

“Globalization of Scientific and Engineering Talent: International Mobility of Students, Workers, and Ideas and the World Economy.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(5): 393–406. doi:10.1080/10438590903432871 Glänzel, W

work page doi:10.1080/10438590903432871

[6] [6]

Globalization of Science and International Scientific Collaboration: A Network Perspective

“Globalization of Science and International Scientific Collaboration: A Network Perspective.” Geoforum, no. 105: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.017 Hagstrom, W. O

work page doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.017 2019

[7] [7]

National Ties of International Scientific Collaboration and Researcher Mobility Found in Nature and Science

“National Ties of International Scientific Collaboration and Researcher Mobility Found in Nature and Science.” Scientometrics, no. 110(2): 673–694. doi:10.1007/s11192- 016-2183-z King, R

work page doi:10.1007/s11192-

[8] [8]

Gender Disparities in International Research Collaboration: A Large-Scale Bibliometric Study of 25,000 University Professors

“Gender Disparities in International Research Collaboration: A Large-Scale Bibliometric Study of 25,000 University Professors.” Journal of Economic Surveys. First published: 13 November 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12395. Leydesdorff, l., Wagner, CS

work page doi:10.1111/joes.12395 2020

[9] [9]

The Research University in Transition: The Emerging Global Model

“The Research University in Transition: The Emerging Global Model.” Higher Education Policy, no. 21(1): 5–27. doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300175 Nielsen, M. W., & Andersen, J. P

work page doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300175

[10] [10]

What do Citation Counts Measure? An Updated Review of Studies on Citations in Scientific Documents Published between 2006 and 2018

“What do Citation Counts Measure? An Updated Review of Studies on Citations in Scientific Documents Published between 2006 and 2018.” Scientometrics, no. 121: 1635–1684 Ulnicane, I

work page 2006

[11] [11]

Towards a Multipolar Science World: Trends and Impact

“Towards a Multipolar Science World: Trends and Impact.” Scientometrics, no. 82: 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0045-7 Wagner, C. S

work page doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0045-7

[12] [12]

Globalisation of Science in Kilometres

“Globalisation of Science in Kilometres.” Journal of Informetrics, no. 5(4): 574–582. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.003 Wang, D., Barabási, A.-L

work page doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.003 2011

[13] [13]

The Science of Science: From the Perspective of Complex Systems

“The Science of Science: From the Perspective of Complex Systems.” Physics Reports, nos.714–715: 1-73. Short bio: Marek Kwiek is Professor and Chairholder, UNESCO Chair in Institutional Research and Higher Education Policy, and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences and Humanities (IAS), University of Poznan, Poland. His researc...

work page 2019