Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bibliometric analysis of bioeconomy research in South Africa

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This document provides an analysis of bioeconomy research in South Africa and it discusses sources of growth in the country’s bioeconomy literature in general. We performed bibliometric analysis as indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) for number of South African authored publications and citations in bioeconomy, and compared them with Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICS) and selected countries for the period 2008 to 2018. The WoS is used for research dealing with the scientific dynamic of a particular topic in most widely diffused journals and for citation analysis. The results highlight South Africa ranked last in the BRICS group in terms of number of bioeconomy publications produced in the selected period, and has a world share of 0.8%, which is higher than the national research average of 0.5%. The citations growth for South Africa bioeconomy publication increased by 6.8%, higher than Brazil, Russia and world citations during the period under review. The University of Cape Town is a leader in bioeconomy publications in South Africa followed by University of Stellenbosch and the University of KwaZulu Natal, with majority of the publications on environmental sciences ecology. South Africa collaborates the most with institutions from the United States of America in bioeconomy research, and the percent of international collaboration is similar with that of national scientific publications. However, South Africa experienced a decline in bioeconomy industry collaboration publications during this period.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Cicero, T. (2012). What is appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics, 93(3), 1005–1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf). (2009). Consensus report on revitalising clinical research in South Africa. Pretoria. Accessed 20 February 2020, https://www.assaf.org.za.

  • Agency Inovasi Malysia (AIM). (2013). National Biomass Strategy 2020: New wealth creation for Malaysia’s biomass industry, 2. Agency Inovasi Malysia. Accessed 15 March 2019, http://www.a`nbs220.gov.my.

  • Aguillo, I. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(3), 343–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bajwa, R. S., & Yaldram, K. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology research in Pakistan. Scientometrics, 95, 529–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, P., Gupta, B. M., & Garg, K. C. (2000). Patent statistics as indicators of competition - an analysis of patenting in biotechnology. Scientometrics, 47, 95–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bioeconomy Council. (2018). Global bioeconomy summit 2018. In Conference report; federal ministry for education and research, Bonn, Germany. Accessed on 23 August 2019, http://www.gbs2018.com.

  • Boë, L.-J., Berthommier, F., Legou, T., Captier, G., Kemp, C., Sawallis, T. R., et al. (2017). Evidence of a vocalic proto-system in the baboon (Papio papio) suggests pre-hominin speech precursors. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). BRICS countries and scientific excellence: a bibliometric analysis of most frequently-cited papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1507–1513. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugge, M. M., Hansen, T., & Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature 2016. Sustainability, 8, 691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, A. T., Holt, G., & Lilly, M. D. (1982). Biotechnology. international trends and perspectives. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Accessed 15 March 2019, http://www.oecd.org/sti/emerging-tech/2097562.pdf.

  • Chekol, C., & Gebreyohannes, M. (2018). Application and current trends of biotechnology: a brief review. Austin Journal of Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 5(1), 1088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalpé, R. (2002). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 55(2), 189–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dash Nelson, G., & Rae, A. (2016). An economic geography of the United States: From commutes to megaregions. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLooze, M. A. (1994). The application of scientometric tools to the analysis of a sector in plant biotechnologies: Nitrogen fixation. Scientometrics, 30, 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLooze, M. A., Coronini, R., & Joly, P. B. (2001). A note on recent trends in knowledge creation and appropriation through genomics: A scientometric analysis. International Journal of Biotechnology, 3, 4–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLooze, M. A., & Lemarié, J. (1997). Corpus relevance through co-word analysis: An application to plant proteins. Scientometrics, 39(3), 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLooze, M. A., & Ramani, S. V. (1999). Biotechnology patent applications in Europe—A look at the difference between French, British, and German patent application trends. Nature Biotechnology, 17, 83–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Science and Innovation (DSI). (2019). South African national survey of research and experimental development. Government of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria. Accessed 31 May 2020, https://www.dst.gov.za/index.php/resource-center/rad-reports/2938-sa-r-d-survey-statistical-report-2017-2018.

  • Department of Science and Technology (DST). (2001). National biotechnology strategy for South Africa. Government of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria. Accessed 12 March 2019, http://www.gov.za/documents/national-biotechnology-strategy-south-africa.

  • Department of Science and Technology (DST). (2007). Towards 2018: South Africa’s 10-year national innovation plan. Government of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria. Accessed 12 March 2019. http://www.sagreenfund.org.za/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/10-Year-Innovation-Plan.pdf.

  • Department of Science and Technology (DST). (2012). South Africa’s national research and development strategy. Government of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria. Accessed 12 March 2019, http://www.dst.gov.za/index.php/resource-center/strategies-and-reports/159-south-africas-national-research-and-development-strategy.

  • Department of Science and Technology (DST) (2013). The bio-economy strategy. Government of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria. Accessed 12 March 2019, http://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/bioeconomy-strategya.pdf.

  • Department of Science and Technology (DST). (2019). White paper on science, technology and innovation as government policy. Government of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria. Accessed 31 May 2020, https://www.dst.gov.za/images/2019/WHITE_PAPER_ON_SCIENCE_AND_TECHNOLOGY_web.pdf.

  • European Commission (EC). (2012). Innovating for sustainable growth: A bioeconomy for Europe. Brussels. Europa. Accessed 23 June 2019, Available from: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1f0d8515-8dc0-4435-ba53-9570e47dbd51.

  • Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappa, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, scopus, web of science, and google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) & Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). (2015). Bioeconomy in Germany. Opportunities for a bio-based and sustainable future. Bonn and Berlin: Federal Ministry of Education and Research and Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 20 June 2019, http://www.bmbf.de/upload_filestore/pub/Biooekonomie_in_Deutschland_Eng.pdf.

  • Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2016). How sustainability is addressed in official bioeconomy strategies at international, national and regional levels: An overview. Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed 25 May 2019, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5998e.pdf.

  • Fuss, J., Spassov, N., Begun, D. R., & Böhme, M. (2017). Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from the Late Miocene of Europe. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1964). Science citation index: A new dimension in indexing. Science, 144(3619), 649–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Bioeconomy Summit. (2018). Innovation in the global bioeconomy for sustainable and inclusive transformation and wellbeing. Accessed 12 January 2020, http://gbs2018.com/fileadmin/gbs2018/downloads/GBS_2018_Communique.pdf.

  • Gravett, N., Bhagwandin, A., Sutcliffe, R., Landen, K., Chase, M. J., Lyamin, O. I., et al. (2017). Inactivity/sleep in two wild free-roaming African elephant matriarchs—Does large body size make elephants the shortest mammalian sleepers? PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallmann, C. A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., et al. (2017). More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinze, S., & Grupp, H. (1996). Mapping of R&D structures in transdisciplinary areas: New biotechnology in food sciences. Scientometrics, 37, 313–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • InCites 2.0. Accessed July 2019, http://incites.clarivate.com.

  • Jordan, A., & Schout, A. (2006). The coordination of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, M. (2011). A bibliometric analysis of South Africa’s scientific outputs–some trends and implications. South African Journal of Science, 107(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochhar, V. B., & Verma, R. K. (1987). Indian biotechnology literature: A bibliometric study. Annals of Library Science and Documentation, 34(2), 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lance, R. M., Stalcup, L., Wojtylak, B., & Bass, C. R. (2017). Air blast injuries killed the crew of the submarine H.L. Hunley. PLoS ONE, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182244.

  • Lewison, G. (1994). Publications from the European community’s biotechnology action programme (BAP): Multinationality, acknowledgment of support, and citations. Scientometrics, 31, 125–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Heimeriks, G. (2001). The self-organisation of the European information society: The case of “biotechnology”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(14), 1262–1274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lier, M., Aarne, M., Kärkkäinen, L., Korhonen, K. T., Yli-Viikari, A., & Packalen, T. (2018). Synthesis on bioeconomy monitoring systems in the EU Member States–indicators for monitoring the progress of bioeconomy. Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 38/2018. 44p. Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki 2018. Accessed 28 January 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339325322.

  • Lier, M., Kärkkäinen, L., Korhonen, K.T., & Packalen, T. (2019). Understanding the regional bioeconomy settings and competencies in 29 EU regions in 11 EU countries. Natural re-sources and bioeconomy studies 88/2019. 28 p. Natural Resources Institute. Finland, Helsinki 2019. Accessed 28 January 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339325269.

  • López-Illescas, C., de Moya Anegón, F., & Moed, H. F. (2009). Comparing bibliometric country-by-country rankings derived from the Web of Science and Scopus: the effect of poorly cited journals in oncology. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 244–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mack, E. A., & Wrase, S. (2017). A burgeoning crisis? A nationwide assessment of the geography of water affordability in the United States. PLoS ONE, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169488.

  • Makhoba, X., & Pouris, A. (2016). Scientometric assessment of selected R&D priority areas in South Africa: A comparison with other BRICS countries. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 8(2), 187–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makhoba, X., & Pouris, A. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of the development of nanoscience research in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 113, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makhoba, X., & Pouris, A. (2019a). A patentometric assessment of selected R&D priority areas in South Africa, a comparison with other BRICS countries. World Patent Information, 56, 20–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makhoba, X., & Pouris, A. (2019b). A. Analysis of R&D efficiency in South Africa: A comparison with other BRICS countries. 2019 Proceedings of PICMET’19: Technology Management in the World of Intelligent Systems, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org.

  • Martens, B., & Saretzki, T. (1994). Quantitative-Analysis of thematic structures in the field of biotechnology–A study on the basis of conference data. Scientometrics, 30, 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google scholar, web of science, and scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, A. P. (2012). South African universities in world rankings. Scientometrics, 92(3), 675–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W. (1995a). The structure of biotechnology R&D. Scientometrics, 30, 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W. (1995b). Biotechnology in context: A database-filtering approach to identifying core and productive non-core journals supporting multidisciplinary R&D. Journal of the America Society for Information Science, 46, 306–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, G. S., Narin, F., & Deeds, D. L. (2000). An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: The case of biotechnology. Research Policy, 29, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2006). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science vs Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) & Bioeconomy Corporation. (2016). Bioeconomy transformation program. Enriching the Nation, Securing the Future. Malaysia: MOSTI and Biotechcorp. Accessed 30 June 2019, http://www.bioeconomycorporation.my/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/BTP-Brochure_ENG-2015.pdf.

  • Naravaez-Berthelemot, N., Russell, J. M., Arvanitis, R., Waast, R., & Gaillard, J. (2002). Science in Africa: An overview of mainstream scientific output. Scientometrics, 54(2), 229–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council on innovation (naci). (2017). south african science, technology and Indicators 2017. Accessed 23 June 2019, http://www.naci.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/South_African_Science_Technology_And_Innovation_Indicators_Report_2017.pdf.

  • National Development Plan (NDP). (2012). Government of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria. Accessed 12 March 2019, http://www.gov.za/issues/national-development-plan-2030.

  • Nederhof, A. J. (1988). Changes in publication patterns of biotechnologists: An evaluation of the impact of government stimulation programs in six industrial nations. Scientometrics, 14, 475–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordstrom, L. O. (1987). Applied versus basic science in the literature of plant biology: A bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics, 12, 381–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2016). Compendium of bibliometric science indicators. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2009). The bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a policy agenda. Main findings and policy conclusions. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, T.T.S. (2000). A Bibliometric Study of the Portuguese Research System in Biotechnology. Instituto Nacional de Engenharia, Tecnologia e Inovação. DMS 020/2000. Accessed 22 July 2019, http://www.ces.uc.pt/myces/UserFiles/livros/192_clusterPT_bibliometrics.pdf.

  • Pfau, S. F., Hagens, J. E., Dankbaar, B., & Smits, J. M. (2014). Visions of sustainability in bioeconomy research. Sustainability, 6, 1222–1249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouris, A. (2003). South Africa’s research publication record: The last ten years. South African Journal of Science, 99, 425–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouris, A. (2006). The international performance of South African academic institutions; a citation assessment. Higher Education, 54(4), 501–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouris, A. (2012). Scientometric research in South Africa and successful policy instruments. Scientometrics, 91, 317–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouris, A., & Pouris, A. (2009a). The state of science and technology in Africa (2000–2004): A scientometric assessment. Scientometrics, 79(2), 297–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouris, A., & Pouris, A. (2009b). Biotechnology research in South Africa: A benchmarking exercise. Journal of Business Chemistry, 6(1), 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., & Courtial, J. P. (1984). Co-word maps of biotechnology: An example of cognitive scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6, 381–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Salvador, M., María Rio-Belver, R., & Garechana-Anacabe, G. (2017). Scientometric and patentometric analyses to determine the knowledge landscape in innovative technologies: The case of 3D bioprinting. PLOS ONE, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180375.

  • Sevukan, R., & Sharma, J. (2008). Bibliometric analysis of research output of biotechnology faculties in some Indian central universities. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28(6), 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, H., & Saxena, S. K. (1992). Application of biotechnology in mass health care—literature trend. Annals of Library Science and Documentation, 39(1), 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sridhar, K. R. (2005). Recent trends in biotechnology. Current Science, 88, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staffas, L., Gustavsson, M., & McCormick, K. (2013). Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: An analysis of official national approaches. Sustainability, 5, 2751–2769.

    Google Scholar 

  • The White House (2012). National Bioeconomy Blueprint. Washington. Accessed 14 March 2019, http://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/national_bioeconomy_blueprint_april_2012.pdf.

  • Thomas, S. M. (1992). The evaluation of plant biomass research: A case study of the problems inherent in bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 23, 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2011). Biobased Economy Indicators; A report to the U.S. Congress. National Technical Information Service. Washington. Accessed 12 March 2019, www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/index.htm.

  • Wagner, A. B. (2015). A Practical comparison of scopus and web of science core collection. Accessed 20 February 2020, https://ubir.buffalo.edu/xmlui/handle/10477/38568.

  • Web of Science. Accessed March-July 2019, http://www.thomsonreuters.com/web-of-science.

  • Yao, Q., Chen, K., Yao, L., Lyu, P., Yang, T., Luo, F., et al. (2014). Scientometric trends and knowledge maps of global health systems research. Health Research Policy and Systems, https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-26.

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1994). Intellectual capital and the birth of U.S biotechnology enterprises. National Bureau of Economic Research 4653. Accessed 2 July 2019, http://www.nber.org/papers/w4653.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the NACI report “Bioeconomy framework and indicators to monitor the implementation of the South African Bioeconomy Strategy”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Technology Innovation, Graduate School of Technology Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

    Thabang Lazarus Bambo & Anastassios Pouris

Authors
  1. Thabang Lazarus Bambo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anastassios Pouris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thabang Lazarus Bambo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bambo, T.L., Pouris, A. Bibliometric analysis of bioeconomy research in South Africa. Scientometrics 125, 29–51 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03626-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03626-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation