The nation of South Africa, after more than a decade of comparative
stasis in terms of research output, has seen its annual yield of
papers rise discernibly in recent years. Concurrently, the
nation’s citation impact in main fields of science has risen
considerably compared to its performance as gauged through the
early 1990s.
It’s been 15 years since Science Watch examined
the state of research in South Africa (6[3]: 1-2, March 1995).
At that time, the nation had only recently emerged from the
pariah status occasioned by the racial policies of apartheid.
As Science Watch noted at the time, South
Africa’s scientific profile appeared to reflect a high
cost of isolation from the world community, as evinced by a low
representation of published papers and low citation impact
compared to the world.
As Nature recently reported, despite the
nation’s stature as by far the largest research base on
the continent, and despite the sense of optimism and renewal
upon the ending of apartheid, South African science continues
to face many problems. These include a lack of strong policy
leadership, inadequate funding, and what some observers view as
excessive emphasis on applied research (M. Cherry,
Nature, 463[7282], 726-8, 11 February 2010).
To assess South Africa’s recent research performance,
Science Watch turned to
ClarivateNational Science Indicators, which
tracks publication and citation statistics for more than 180
countries. The graph to the right shows South Africa’s
output of papers in all fields, along with its percent share
of world science during the same period, as reflected in
papers indexed by Clarivate between 1989 and 2008.
As the graph indicates, South Africa’s output of papers
was essentially flat throughout the 1990s—from roughly 3,300 papers in 1989
to approximately 3,800 in 2001, with minor fluctuations in
between. After 2001, however, the numbers rose
significantly, exceeding 4,100 in 2002, topping 4,800 in
2005, and winding up above 6,600 in 2008. South
Africa’s overall percentage of world papers,
meanwhile, dipped slightly in the course of the 20-year
period, but finished on an upward trajectory, roughly at its
starting point of 0.60%.
For a closer look at South Africa’s recent output,
Science Watch examined the country’s output from
2004 to 2008 in 21 main fields of science. In
table 1 (below), the fields are ranked
according to South Africa’s percentage share of each
during the five-year period.
South Africa’s largest share of any main discipline, as
the table shows, was in Plant & Animal Sciences, with the
nation’s 4,179 papers constituting 1.55% of world output
in the field. That sum of papers is just shy of South
Africa’s highest output during the five-year period, in
pure numerical terms, of any of the fields shown here: 4,183
papers in Clinical Medicine, representing 0.41% of the field.
The table’s right-hand column shows the relative-impact
scores for South Africa—that is, the nation’s
cites-per-paper mark compared to the world average. In Plant
& Animal Science, for example, papers bearing at least one
author address in South Africa registered at 14% below the
world mark (2.73 cites per paper for South Africa versus 3.17
for the world).
On the other hand, papers from South Africa-based researchers
exceeded the world average in several fields, including
Computer Science, Environment/Ecology, Space Science,
Immunology, and Clinical Medicine. Impact was also respectably
close to the world average in Agricultural Sciences and
Mathematics. This pattern is strikingly different from the
previous Science Watch survey in 1995, when South
Africa’s relative-impact figures for 1981-93 bested the
world in only one field, Agricultural Sciences. Although the
nation still has some progress to make in terms of impact in
Molecular Biology & Genetics, Biology & Biochemistry,
and other life-science fields, the overall improvement is
notable.
If the period of apartheid exacted a cost in terms of
international collaboration, table 2
(below) shows how far South Africa has come in recent years in
terms of coauthorship with other countries. The table ranks
collaborating nations, according to number of papers, in two
five-year spans, 1994 to 1998 and 2004 to 2008, with the
percentage of papers for the latter period shown in the right
column. The roster of countries doesn’t change markedly
between the two periods, but the general increases are
significant, with papers coauthored with the United States
rising from 1,700 papers to nearly 5,000, and the other listed
nations showing a similar pattern.
South Africa’s most-cited paper of the last five years
reflects international collaboration, specifically the
contribution of South African authors to a large, multicenter
study of breast cancer therapy (O. Abe, et al.,
Lancet, 365[9472]: 1687-1717, 2005). The report has
now been cited more than 1,300 times.
In all, while challenges remain, the present evidence suggests
that South African science appears to be moving in the right
direction.
Christopher King is the Editor of the Science
Watch® Newsletter, Thomson
Reuters.
1990s—from roughly 3,300 papers in 1989
to approximately 3,800 in 2001, with minor fluctuations in
between. After 2001, however, the numbers rose
significantly, exceeding 4,100 in 2002, topping 4,800 in
2005, and winding up above 6,600 in 2008. South
Africa’s overall percentage of world papers,
meanwhile, dipped slightly in the course of the 20-year
period, but finished on an upward trajectory, roughly at its
starting point of 0.60%. 
