Sujit Bhattacharya

Vivek Kumar Singh, Parveen Arora, Ashraf Uddin et al.

During the last two decades, India has emerged as a major knowledge producer in the world, however different reports put it at different ranks, varying from 3rd to 9th places. The recent commissioned study reports of Department of Science and Technology (DST) done by Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics, rank India at 5thand 9th places, respectively. On the other hand, an independent report by National Science Foundation (NSF) of United States (US), ranks India at 3rd place on research output in Science and Engineering area. Interestingly, both, the Elsevier and the NSF reports use Scopus data, and yet surprisingly their outcomes are different. This article, therefore, attempts to investigate as to how the use of same database can still produce different outcomes, due to differences in methodological approaches. The publication counting method used and the subject selection approach are the two main exogenous factors identified to cause these variations. The implications of the analytical outcomes are discussed with special focus on policy perspectives.

Prashasti Singh, Vivek Kumar Singh, Parveen Arora et al.

India is emerging as a major knowledge producer of the world in terms of proportionate share of global research output and the overall research productivity rank. Many recent reports, both of commissioned studies from Government of India as well as independent international agencies, show India at different ranks of global research productivity (variations as large as from 3rd to 9th place). The paper examines this contradiction; tries to analyse as to why different reports places India at different ranks and what may be the reasons thereof. The research output data for India, along with the ten most productive countries in the world, is analysed from three major scholarly databases: Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions for this purpose. Results show that both, the endogenous factors (such as database coverage variation and different subject classification schemes) and the exogenous factors (such as subject selection and publication counting methodology) cause the variations in different reports. This paper reports first part of the analysis, focusing mainly on variations due to use of data from different databases. The policy implications of the study are also discussed.

Sujit Bhattacharya, Shubham Singh

The recent SARS-COV-2 virus outbreak has created an unprecedented global health crisis! The disease is showing alarming trends with the number of people getting infected with this disease, new cases and death rate are all highlighting the need to control this disease at the earliest. The strategy now for the governments around the globe is how to limit the spread of the virus until the research community develops treatment/drug or vaccination against the virus. The outbreak of this disease has unsurprisingly led to huge volume of research within a short period of time surrounding this disease. It has also led to aggressive social media activity on twitter, Facebook, dedicated blogs, news reports and other online sites actively involved in discussing about the various aspects of and related to this disease. It becomes a useful and challenging exercise to draw from this huge volume of research, the key papers that form the research front, its influence in the research community, and other important research insights. Similarly, it becomes important to discern the key issues that influence the society concerning this disease. The paper is motivated by this. It attempts to distinguish which are the most influential papers, the key knowledge base and major topics surrounding the research covered by COVID-19. Further it attempts to capture the society's perception by discerning key topics that are trending online. The study concludes by highlighting the implications of this study.