Highly Cited Researchers (HCR):
Clarivate Analytics has listed 6 Pakistani and 10 Indian researchers in its latest list of the world's 4000 most highly cited researchers (HCR). There are 12 Iranians and no Bangladeshis and no Sri Lankans on it. This year's Highly Cited Researchers list includes 17 Nobel Laureates. It represents more than 60 nations, but more than 80% of them are from the 10 nations and 70% from the first five – a remarkable concentration of top talent. Here are the top 10 nations in order: United States, United Kingdom, China, Germany, Australia, Netherlands, Canada, France, Switzerland and Spain.
Most Highly Cited Pakistani Scientists. Source: Clarivate Analytics |
The United States leads among HCRs with 2,639 scientists followed by the United Kingdom's 546 and China's 482. Top three institutions producing world's most highly cited researchers are: Harvard University (186), National Institutes of Health (148) and Stanford University (100). Chinese Academy of Sciences ranks 4th with 99 highly cited researchers.
Research Output Growth:
Pakistan is one of the world's top two countries where the research output rose the fastest in 2018, according to Nature Magazine. The publication reports that the "global production of scientific papers hit an all-time high this year...with emerging economies rising fastest".
Countries With Biggest Rises in Research Output. Source: Nature |
Pakistan ranked first or second depending on whether one accepts the text or the graphic (above) published by Nature. The text says Egypt had 21% growth while the graph shows Pakistan with 21% growth. Here's an excerpt of the text: "Emerging economies showed some of the largest increases in research output in 2018, according to estimates from the publishing-services company Clarivate Analytics. Egypt and Pakistan topped the list in percentage terms, with rises of 21% and 15.9%, respectively. ...China’s publications rose by about 15%, and India, Brazil, Mexico and Iran all saw their output grow by more than 8% compared with 2017".
Scientific Output:
Pakistan's quality-adjusted scientific output (Weighted Functional Count) as reported in Nature Index has doubled from 18.03 in 2013 to 37.28 in 2017. Pakistan's global ranking has improved from 53 in 2013 to 40 in 2017. In the same period, India's WFC has increased from 850.97 in 2013 to 935.44 in 2017. India's global ranking has improved from 13 in 2013 to 11 in 2017.
Top 10 Pakistan Institutions in Scientific Output. Source: Nature Index |
Pakistan ranks 40 among 161 countries for quality adjusted scientific output for year 2017 as reported by Nature Index 2018. Pakistan ranks 40 with quality-adjusted scientific output of 37.28. India ranks 11 with 935. Malaysia ranks 61 with 6.73 and Indonesia ranks 63 with 6.41. Bangladesh ranks 100 with 0.81. Sri Lanka ranks 84 with 1.36. US leads with almost 15,800, followed by China's 7,500, Germany 3,800, UK 3,100 and Japan 2,700.
Nature Index:
The Nature Index is a database of author affiliation information collated from research articles published in an independently selected group of 82 high-quality science journals. The database is compiled by Nature Research. The Nature Index provides a close to real-time proxy of high-quality research output and collaboration at the institutional, national and regional level.
The Nature Index includes primary research articles published in a group of high-quality science journals. The journals included in the Nature Index are selected by a panel of active scientists, independently of Nature Research. The selection process reflects researchers’ perceptions of journal quality, rather than using quantitative measures such as Impact Factor. It is intended that the list of journals amounts to a reasonably consensual upper echelon of journals in the natural sciences and includes both multidisciplinary journals and some of the most highly selective journals within the main disciplines of the natural sciences. The journals included in the Nature Index represent less than 1% of the journals covering natural sciences in the Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) but account for close to 30% of total citations to natural science journals.
Pakistan vs BRICS:
In a report titled "Pakistan: Another BRIC in the Wall", author Lulian Herciu says that Pakistan’s scientific productivity has quadrupled, from approximately 2,000 articles per year in 2006 to more than 9,000 articles in 2015. During this time, the number of Highly Cited Papers featuring Pakistan-based authors increased tenfold, from 9 articles in 2006 to 98 in 2015.
Top Asian Universities:
In terms of the number of universities ranking in Asia's top 500, Pakistan with its 23 universities ranks second in South Asia and 7th among 17 Asian nations topped by China with 112, Japan 89, India 75, South Korea 57, Taiwan 36, Malaysia 26, Pakistan 23, Indonesia 22, Thailand 19, Philippines 8, Hong Kong 7, Vietnam 7, Bangladesh 6, Sri Lanka 4, Singapore 3, Macao 2 and Brunei 2.
Summary:
Clarivate Analytics has listed 6 Pakistani and 10 Indian researchers in its latest list of the world's 4000 most highly cited researchers (HCR). There are 12 Iranians and no Bangladeshis and no Sri Lankans on it. Pakistan is among the world's top two countries where the research output rose the fastest in 2018. Pakistan's quality-adjusted scientific output (WFC) as reported in Nature Index has doubled from 18.03 in 2013 to 37.28 in 2017. Pakistan's global ranking has improved from 53 in 2013 to 40 in 2017. Pakistan ranks 40 with quality-adjusted scientific output of 37.28. India ranks 11 with 935. Malaysia ranks 61 with 6.73 and Indonesia ranks 63 with 6.41. Bangladesh ranks 100 with 0.81. Sri Lanka ranks 84 with 1.36. In a report titled "Pakistan: Another BRIC in the Wall", author Lulian Herciu says that Pakistan’s scientific productivity has quadrupled, from approximately 2,000 articles per year in 2006 to more than 9,000 articles in 2015. During this time, the number of Highly Cited Papers featuring Pakistan-based authors increased tenfold, from 9 articles in 2006 to 98 in 2015. British ranking agency Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) has recently ranked 23 Pakistani universities among the top 500 Asian universities for 2019, up from 16 in 2018.
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
South Asia Investor Review
Pakistani-American is Top US Expert in Quantum Computing
AI Research at NED University Funded By Silicon Valley NEDians
Pakistan Hi-Tech Exports Exceed A Billion US Dollars in 2018
Pakistan Becomes CERN Member
Pakistani Scientists at CERN
Rising College Enrollment in Pakistan
Pakistani Universities Listed Among Asia's Top 500 Jump From 16 to 23 in One Year
Genomics and Biotech Research in Pakistan
Human Capital Growth in Pakistan
Educational Attainment in Pakistan
Pakistan Human Development in Musharraf Years
11 comments:
BAH HUMBUG!
Please verify the information. There are 17 Indian scientists listed not ten! (Page 2 has 7 listed)
with population one 5th of Indians that put pakistanis on lead
NBRX: "Please verify the information. There are 17 Indian scientists listed not ten! (Page 2 has 7 listed)"
It's 17 only if you include American researchers at Indiana University in the US State of Indiana who are included in the search result.
https://hcr.clarivate.com/#freeText%3Dind
Jamshed: "with population one 5th of Indians that put pakistanis on lead"
India’s population of 1.35 billion is almost 7X Pakistan’s 200 million
You have posted up & coming progressive news on Pakistan.
"Rising College Enrollment in Pakistan"
"Pakistan Wealth Inequality Lowest in South Asia"
"Pakistan's Middle Class Larger and Richer Than India's"
"Pakistan Translates GDP Growth to Citizens' Well-being"
"Pakistani Universities Listed Among Asia's Top 500 Jump From 16 to 23 in One Year"
"Human Capital Growth in Pakistan"
"Educational Attainment in Pakistan"
"Pakistan's Trillion Dollar Economy Among top 25"
The million dollar question: Why does Pakistan is at the bottom in HDI in South Asia?
RH: "Why does Pakistan is at the bottom in HDI in South Asia?"
Why does the United States rank 13th in terms of Human Development Index?
Shouldn't it be number 1 given its world's highest number of top scientists, biggest most innovative tech companies and most Nobel Prize winners?
Here's an interesting analysis of problems with HDI:
In our view, the HDI has three main problems. First, it implicitly assumes trade-offs between its components. For example, the HDI measures health using life expectancy at birth and measures economic conditions using GDP per capita. So the same HDI score can be achieved with different combinations of the two.
As a result, the HDI implies a value of an additional year of life in terms of economic output. This value differs according to a country’s level of GDP per capita. Dig into the HDI and you will find whether it assumes an additional year of life is worth more in the US or Canada, more in Germany or France, and more in Norway or Niger.
The HDI also struggles with the accuracy and meaningfulness of the underlying data. Average income could be high in a country, but what if most of it goes to a small elite? The HDI does not distinguish between countries with the same GDP per capita, but different levels of income inequality or between countries based on the quality of education. By focusing on averages, the HDI can obscure important differences in human development. Incorporating inaccurate or incomplete data in an index reduces its usefulness.
Finally, data on different domains may be highly correlated. For example, the GDP per capita and the average level of education in countries are strongly related. Including two highly correlated indicators may provide little additional information compared to just using one.
https://qz.com/1456012/the-3-key-problems-with-the-uns-human-development-index/
#Saudi partnerships too valuable to give up – #MIT report. Saudi money accounted for 44% of total spending, funding scholarships, fellowships and programs. Mohammed Jameel, a Saudi businessman and MIT #alumnus gave US$73 million. #ivyleague #universities https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20181208044009628
Last March the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) welcomed Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, to its campus. Nearby, and captured in a photograph of the occasion, was Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb, reportedly an intelligence officer who is often seen in the prince’s company.
[This is an article from The Chronicle of Higher Education, America’s leading higher education publication. It is presented here under an agreement with University World News.]
Months later Mutreb was in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, allegedly helping oversee the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi exile and Washington Post columnist, according to accounts from the news media and Turkish and United States officials. He is now one of 17 Saudi officials under sanction by the US government.
The ‘disturbing’ visit to the MIT campus is one of many facts laid out in a new report by Richard K Lester, MIT’s associate provost for international activities, that seeks to re-examine the university’s relationship with Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of Khashoggi’s killing.
But Lester, despite acknowledging that taking money from agencies affiliated with the Saudi government raises ethical issues, ended up recommending that MIT not sever those ties.
In short, Lester reasoned, no evidence has surfaced tying any of the organisations that MIT deals with – the state oil company, Saudi Aramco, for example – to the assassination. And, he wrote, cutting ties with them would probably do little to make Saudi Arabia less repressive.
“On the positive side,” he concluded, “these organisations are supporting important research and activities at MIT on terms that honour our principles and comply with our policies.”
MIT is just one of many colleges with financial ties to Saudi Arabia, but it was among the first to publicly re-examine its Saudi partnerships in October, when L Rafael Reif, its president, asked Lester to compile a report. MIT released Lester’s preliminary findings on 6 December.
The report provides an uncommonly candid argument in favour of maintaining ties with an autocratic state caught at the centre of an international furor. And it may dismay activists who have pressed MIT and other colleges to forgo the millions they reap from the regime and its affiliates.
The Khashoggi crisis broke out as MIT was considering a ‘significant expansion’ of its relationships with Saudi Arabia, according to the report. Despite the country’s illiberal domestic policies and involvement in the Yemeni civil war, MIT officials hoped to be a part of what they saw as the kingdom’s steps toward reform. “The Khashoggi murder has deflated many of those hopes,” Lester wrote.
Nevertheless, he recommended maintaining MIT’s ties to the kingdom. Saudi donors, state agencies, companies and state-owned enterprises have spent millions of dollars to sponsor research, scholarships and academic programmes.
Saudi Aramco, for instance, the largest Saudi funder of MIT’s sponsored research, has contributed about US$5 million to MIT per year for the past five years, according to an interview Lester gave to The Tech, the student newspaper.
Just over half of that overall Saudi spending in the past three years, from Saudi agencies, state-owned enterprises and universities, has funded research projects at MIT, according to the report. Lester emphasised that donors do not control the research they fund.
Gifts from Saudi donors accounted for 44% of overall spending, funding scholarships, fellowships and programmes. Many of those gifts came from Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel, a Saudi businessman and MIT alumnus who has donated US$73 million to the college over the past decade, according to the Associated Press.
What Pakistan's Amazing Research Productivity Statistic Isn't Telling You
The journal Nature reported in December that Pakistan's research output increased the most among all countries in the world – by 21%.
https://thewire.in/education/research-productivity-increased-most-in-pakistan-last-year-at-first-glance
Academia in Pakistan appears to be booming.
Productivity has never been higher. A recent report by the publishing service Clarivate Analytics stated that Pakistan saw a 21% increase in research output in 2018 – the highest in the world. The number of research papers published increased fourfold between 2006 and 2015. According to Reuters, the number of ‘highly cited papers’ authored by Pakistani scholars has jumped significantly, from nine articles in 2006 to 98 in 2015.
According to Edarabia (https://www.edarabia.com/universities/pakistan/) , Pakistan now produces 445,000 university graduates every year. The number of Pakistani students studying in the US increased by 14.2% in 2017 and 7.4% in 2018. While scholarships contribute to this figure, it also reflects a changing socio-economic landscape in Pakistan, and the rise of an affluent class able to educate their children abroad. And since many scholarships require students to return to their countries of origin after graduation, more foreign-educated Pakistanis are returning to their homeland and often re-enter academia.
Reading all of this, one can be forgiven for thinking that a Pakistani higher education institute is a ticket to intellectual glory. The fact is that academic administrators have been delivering this spiel to hide numerous, and widening, cracks in the system.
The level of education has improved in the last decade or so with an explosion in the number of private universities (from two in 1992 to 188 recognised by the Higher Education Commission [HEC]). However, the quality of education has been falling and, with that, the quality of research papers as well.
------------------------
So it’s clear that the highest quality research being produced by Pakistanis is more often than not outside Pakistan. Inside, the country’s education system isn’t producing many students who can think critically about local problems and innovate solutions.
Together with a prevalent culture of dishonesty, where scientometric numbers are of greater interest than credible papers in credible journals, the situation can only deteriorate.
Reports like the one by Nature sound too good to be true because they are. Real achievements in research don’t happen spontaneously. They have to be earned with hard work and policies that orient that work towards the right goals.
There are two easy places at which to begin. First: the Pakistani government spends only 2% of its budget on education. Increasing this figure can only be a good thing. Second: the government should then undertake a structural overhaul of the country’s antiquated education system.
https://www.edarabia.com/universities/pakistan/
#Pakistan researchers claim producing low-cost artificial #skin. A team of #doctors, #biologists and #microbiologists has produced cloned #biological skin at a laboratory in #Lahore. They claim it is higher quality than produced in #US, #Europe.
https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Researchers-in-Pakistan-We-can-manufacture-low-cost-artificial-skin-588236
The University of Health Sciences has formally requested recognition of its artificial human skin from the country’s Drug Regulatory Authority, and the process is expected to be completed soon.
“We have signed an agreement with the representative body of the Pakistan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PPMA),” Akram said. “A consortium of 20 large companies will manufacture the skin and related medications. We have made sure it will be available at low cost. Also, companies will export it globally.”
Haseeb Khan, a representative of the PPMA, confirmed that a memorandum of understanding had been signed with the University of Health Sciences to produce the human skin locally.
“We have placed an order to import advanced machinery from Canada and Spain,” Khan told The Media Line. “We have agreed to produce artificial human skin, the pupil of the human eye, and cells of kidneys in Pakistan according to international standards.”
According to Dr. Rauf Ahmed, a renowned microbiologist in Pakistan who played a vital role in producing the skin, its quality is better than that of skin manufactured in the US and Europe.
“It took local doctors only eight days to prepare a single draft of artificial biological skin,” Ahmed told The Media Line. “Some chemicals and chemical substances are used during the preparation. They are less expensive in Pakistan as compared to the US and EU. That’s why we have managed to keep the costs low.”
Dr. Yasmin Rashid, the provincial health minister, called the production of cloned biological skin by local doctors a “landmark achievement.”
“Pakistan spent millions of dollars on the import of human skin annually,” Rashid told The Media Line. “Now it will be available in Pakistan at low cost.”
#Karachi's Aga Khan University Prof Zulfiqar Bhutta ranked among top 100 scientists in #medicine globally. He is the only scientist from #Pakistan and the low- and middle-income countries who made it to the top 100. #Pediatrics #AKU @AKUGlobal @PFL_aku https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/959688-prof-zulfiqar-bhutta-ranked-among-top-100-scientists-in-medicine-globally
Professor Zulfiqar Bhutta of the Aga Khan University (AKU) has been ranked among the top 100 medicine scientists in the first edition of top scientists ranking for medicine published by Research.com, one of the major knowledge centres for medicine research
The ranking is based on criteria that consider h-index, which indicates how productive and influential a researcher is, as well as publications and citations.
The ranking team examined 166,880 scientists on Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Graph, and over 65,743 profiles for the discipline of medicine.
Professor Bhutta is the only scientist from Pakistan and the low- and middle-income countries who made it to the top 100.
“As is the case for other recent recognitions, though a personal recognition, this ranking reflects the achievements of scores of young researchers and faculty members across the world who have worked with me on problems of the most marginalised and impoverished women and children in poor communities,” commented Professor Bhutta, who is the founding director of the Centre of Excellence in Women and Child Health and the Institute for Global Health and Development at AKU, and co-director of the SickKids Centre for Global Child Health, Robert Harding Chair in Global Child Health and Policy, and a senior scientist in the Child Health Evaluative Sciences programme at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.
“Congratulations to Professor Bhutta and his team for this great achievement. Their relevant research at the AKU has changed lives not only in the countries where we seek to serve but also globally,” said AKU President Sulaiman Shahabuddin.
Professor Bhutta is one of the original members of the AKU’s faculty since the establishment of the university.
Having begun his career at AKU in 1986, the university provided a foundation for the development of an illustrious career in which he built research programmes on maternal and child health and nutrition with national and global impact, despite the challenges of political turmoil and economic insecurity in Pakistan.
Between 1996 and 2002, Professor Bhutta and his team at the university undertook extensive community outreach and research programme in an urban slum of Karachi and several rural areas of Pakistan, which then expanded to many regions and provinces of Pakistan as well as other low- and middle-income countries.
Over the last two decades, he has closely collaborated with the government of Pakistan to assess effectiveness of health care approaches and innovations in real-world settings through partnering with public sector community health workers.
Many of these large community-based cluster randomised trials led by Professor Bhutta have generated findings that changed global policy, most notably the finding that using chlorhexidine for cord care among home births was associated with significant reduction in the risk of neonatal sepsis and death, and that public sector community health workers could successfully work with communities to reach those at greatest risk and reduce perinatal mortality as well as maternal morbidities.
His work has been the foundation of multiple international guidelines, including changing the World Health Organisation policy on the treatment of persistent diarrhoea and malnutrition along with establishing lady health workers (LHW) as foundational members of community-based interventions in Pakistan, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
#China tops #US in quantity and quality of #scientific papers. #Chinese #research accounted for 27.2%, or 4,744, of the world's top 1% of most cited papers, overtaking the U.S. at 24.9%, or 4,330. #UK came in 3rd at 5.5%. #India stands 4th & #Japan 5th. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Science/China-tops-U.S.-in-quantity-and-quality-of-scientific-papers
China now leads the world both in the number of scientific research papers as well as most cited papers, a report from Japan's science and technology ministry shows, which is expected to bolster the competitiveness of its economy and industries in the future.
Research papers are considered higher quality the more they are cited by others. Chinese research accounted for 27.2%, or 4,744, of the world's top 1% of most cited papers, overtaking the U.S. at 24.9%, or 4,330. The U.K. came in third at 5.5%.
The ministry's National Institute of Science and Technology Policy compiled the report based on data from research-analytics company Clarivate. The figures represent 2019 levels, based on the annual average between 2018 and 2020 to account for fluctuations in publication numbers. The report was released Tuesday, the same day U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law the CHIPS and Science Act, a $280 billion bill framed as essential to winning economic competition with China through greater research.
Scientific research is the driver behind competitive industries and economies. Current research capabilities will determine future market shares in artificial intelligence, quantum technology and other cutting-edge fields, and may have a direct impact on national security as well.
China has quickly increased its footprint in advanced research in recent years. It overtook the U.S. in the total number of scientific papers in the 2020 report, then in the number of top 10% most cited papers in the 2021 report.
China published 407,181 scientific papers in 2019 according to the latest report, pulling further ahead of the U.S. at 293,434. In terms of the top 10% most cited papers, China accounted for 26.6% of publications, while the U.S. accounted for 21.1%.
"China is one of the top countries in the world in terms of both the quantity and quality of scientific papers," said Shinichi Kuroki, deputy director-general of the Asia and Pacific Research Center at the Japan Science and Technology Agency.
"In order to become the true global leader, it will need to continue producing internationally recognized research," he said.
Meanwhile, Japan is falling behind. It ranked fifth in the total number of publications and 10th in the top 1% most cited papers in the latest report after losing ground to India. It dropped to 12th place in the number of the top 10% most cited papers, passed by Spain and South Korea.
The number of universities in India have increased roughly 4.6 times from 243 in 2000 to 1,117 in 2018. Over two million receive a bachelor's degree in the sciences each year. In contrast, research Japan has slowed since the mid-2000s with no recovery in sight, stoking concerns about the effect on the country's economy and industries.
Post a Comment