Global number of publications over time Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Why are some PhD holders unable to become professors?Which kinds of academic revolutions has philosophy of science indentified so far and when?Finding number of publications in a subjectTuition cost over timeStudies over how noisy is it to accept/reject submissionsA new model for publications where papers evolve over time?Are there studies testing whether academia rewards researchers based on number of publications?Why do journals have limits on the number of references?Trends on time spent studying over the the past few decades, for students outside the USIEEE journal or conference total number of publications?Publications for small time researchNumber of Papers published in area of work

.bashrc alias for a command with fixed second parameter

"Destructive power" carried by a B-52?

How much damage would a cupful of neutron star matter do to the Earth?

Why is a lens darker than other ones when applying the same settings?

Is this Kuo-toa homebrew race balanced?

How do Java 8 default methods hеlp with lambdas?

Is there any significance to the prison numbers of the Beagle Boys starting with 176-?

By what mechanism was the 2017 General Election called?

How will be cipher selected when Client is running on version TLS 1.3 and server is running on TLS 1.2?

Vertical ranges of Column Plots in 12

Can haste grant me and my beast master companion extra attacks?

My mentor says to set image to Fine instead of RAW — how is this different from JPG?

Weaponising the Grasp-at-a-Distance spell

Fit odd number of triplets in a measure?

Did pre-Columbian Americans know the spherical shape of the Earth?

First paper to introduce the "principal-agent problem"

Twin's vs. Twins'

Are there any irrational/transcendental numbers for which the distribution of decimal digits is not uniform?

Should a wizard buy fine inks every time he want to copy spells into his spellbook?

Random body shuffle every night—can we still function?

New Order #6: Easter Egg

Marquee sign letters

Is it OK to use the testing sample to compare algorithms?

Does the universe have a fixed centre of mass?



Global number of publications over time



Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Why are some PhD holders unable to become professors?Which kinds of academic revolutions has philosophy of science indentified so far and when?Finding number of publications in a subjectTuition cost over timeStudies over how noisy is it to accept/reject submissionsA new model for publications where papers evolve over time?Are there studies testing whether academia rewards researchers based on number of publications?Why do journals have limits on the number of references?Trends on time spent studying over the the past few decades, for students outside the USIEEE journal or conference total number of publications?Publications for small time researchNumber of Papers published in area of work










26















We always hear about the increasing number of publications published every year and the resulting information overload in science. I wanted to show this trend to students to highlight why they should care about information literacy and search strategies. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a reliable source that highlights this trend, e.g. in an easy understandable figure.



I searched for publications including this information and even hoped for Web of Science or Google Scholar to publish this information but couldn't find anything useful. It is not that important what kinds of publication types are included, e.g. only journal articles or all kinds of publications.



Has anyone a reliable and relatively easy to understand source highlighting the trend of increasing global number of publications over time?










share|improve this question
























  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    Mar 24 at 15:52











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 16:01











  • Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

    – Jasper
    Mar 24 at 23:15















26















We always hear about the increasing number of publications published every year and the resulting information overload in science. I wanted to show this trend to students to highlight why they should care about information literacy and search strategies. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a reliable source that highlights this trend, e.g. in an easy understandable figure.



I searched for publications including this information and even hoped for Web of Science or Google Scholar to publish this information but couldn't find anything useful. It is not that important what kinds of publication types are included, e.g. only journal articles or all kinds of publications.



Has anyone a reliable and relatively easy to understand source highlighting the trend of increasing global number of publications over time?










share|improve this question
























  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    Mar 24 at 15:52











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 16:01











  • Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

    – Jasper
    Mar 24 at 23:15













26












26








26


6






We always hear about the increasing number of publications published every year and the resulting information overload in science. I wanted to show this trend to students to highlight why they should care about information literacy and search strategies. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a reliable source that highlights this trend, e.g. in an easy understandable figure.



I searched for publications including this information and even hoped for Web of Science or Google Scholar to publish this information but couldn't find anything useful. It is not that important what kinds of publication types are included, e.g. only journal articles or all kinds of publications.



Has anyone a reliable and relatively easy to understand source highlighting the trend of increasing global number of publications over time?










share|improve this question
















We always hear about the increasing number of publications published every year and the resulting information overload in science. I wanted to show this trend to students to highlight why they should care about information literacy and search strategies. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a reliable source that highlights this trend, e.g. in an easy understandable figure.



I searched for publications including this information and even hoped for Web of Science or Google Scholar to publish this information but couldn't find anything useful. It is not that important what kinds of publication types are included, e.g. only journal articles or all kinds of publications.



Has anyone a reliable and relatively easy to understand source highlighting the trend of increasing global number of publications over time?







publications reference-request






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 26 at 3:14









JJJ

1605




1605










asked Mar 24 at 15:36









FuzzyLeapfrogFuzzyLeapfrog

4,05811241




4,05811241












  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    Mar 24 at 15:52











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 16:01











  • Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

    – Jasper
    Mar 24 at 23:15

















  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    Mar 24 at 15:52











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 16:01











  • Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

    – Jasper
    Mar 24 at 23:15
















Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

– Solar Mike
Mar 24 at 15:52





Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

– Solar Mike
Mar 24 at 15:52













The underlying reasons may be related.

– FuzzyLeapfrog
Mar 24 at 16:01





The underlying reasons may be related.

– FuzzyLeapfrog
Mar 24 at 16:01













Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

– Jasper
Mar 24 at 23:15





Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

– Jasper
Mar 24 at 23:15










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















21














I found an archived version of the 2018 MTS Report. Among other statistics, it has this plot of the scientific output from 1975-2018 and four different databases:



2018 MTS Report



The Web of Science (WoS) line looks rather similar to the earlier results of Bornmann and Mutz (2014), who produced this figure for 1980-2012 using a copy of WoS' database:



Exponential growth






share|improve this answer

























  • Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 15:59











  • @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

    – Anyon
    Mar 24 at 16:06











  • I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 16:22






  • 1





    Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

    – henning
    Mar 24 at 17:54











  • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 19:16


















13














arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



enter image description here



This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



Long-term chart:



enter image description here



Very long-term chart:



enter image description here



There is also biorxiv covering the missing biomedical scientific branches, much younger than arxiv but there is a quite detailed statistical report on its growth.



Publication: Attention decay in science (due to exponential growth)



(To me it's also interesting how this correlates with the number of PhD students in another answer and how this can be explained... did internet boost scientific productivity and/or number of PhD students?!)






share|improve this answer




















  • 8





    Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

    – Anyon
    Mar 24 at 18:49











  • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

    – user847982
    Mar 24 at 18:58











  • That's not exponential growth, though...

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 19:11











  • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

    – user847982
    Mar 24 at 19:16












  • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 20:23


















7














For the field of mathematics, another source of data is the AMS Math Reviews (MathSciNet), where this type of information is readily available (just search for the year you want). Virtually every reputable math publication gets indexed there nowadays. Also, unlike something like Google Scholar, only reputable journals get indexed and each publication appears only once. Math Reviews is a paid service, so you'd need to be affiliated with a university with a subscription. (I don't know how complete this data is as you go further back in time. Maybe someone else has a better sense of this.)



For example, here are the total number of mathematics publications for various years at 10-year intervals.



2018: 111,018;
2008: 99,268;
1998: 67,807;
1988: 55,420;
1978: 36,637;
1968: 19,615;
1958: 10,249;
1948: 5,456;
1938: 1,417;
1928: 1,439;
1918: 632;
1908: 729;
1898: 710;
1888: 266;
1878: 181






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "415"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126980%2fglobal-number-of-publications-over-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    21














    I found an archived version of the 2018 MTS Report. Among other statistics, it has this plot of the scientific output from 1975-2018 and four different databases:



    2018 MTS Report



    The Web of Science (WoS) line looks rather similar to the earlier results of Bornmann and Mutz (2014), who produced this figure for 1980-2012 using a copy of WoS' database:



    Exponential growth






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 15:59











    • @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

      – Anyon
      Mar 24 at 16:06











    • I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 16:22






    • 1





      Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

      – henning
      Mar 24 at 17:54











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 19:16















    21














    I found an archived version of the 2018 MTS Report. Among other statistics, it has this plot of the scientific output from 1975-2018 and four different databases:



    2018 MTS Report



    The Web of Science (WoS) line looks rather similar to the earlier results of Bornmann and Mutz (2014), who produced this figure for 1980-2012 using a copy of WoS' database:



    Exponential growth






    share|improve this answer

























    • Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 15:59











    • @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

      – Anyon
      Mar 24 at 16:06











    • I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 16:22






    • 1





      Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

      – henning
      Mar 24 at 17:54











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 19:16













    21












    21








    21







    I found an archived version of the 2018 MTS Report. Among other statistics, it has this plot of the scientific output from 1975-2018 and four different databases:



    2018 MTS Report



    The Web of Science (WoS) line looks rather similar to the earlier results of Bornmann and Mutz (2014), who produced this figure for 1980-2012 using a copy of WoS' database:



    Exponential growth






    share|improve this answer















    I found an archived version of the 2018 MTS Report. Among other statistics, it has this plot of the scientific output from 1975-2018 and four different databases:



    2018 MTS Report



    The Web of Science (WoS) line looks rather similar to the earlier results of Bornmann and Mutz (2014), who produced this figure for 1980-2012 using a copy of WoS' database:



    Exponential growth







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Mar 24 at 19:14

























    answered Mar 24 at 15:53









    AnyonAnyon

    8,76023345




    8,76023345












    • Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 15:59











    • @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

      – Anyon
      Mar 24 at 16:06











    • I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 16:22






    • 1





      Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

      – henning
      Mar 24 at 17:54











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 19:16

















    • Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 15:59











    • @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

      – Anyon
      Mar 24 at 16:06











    • I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 16:22






    • 1





      Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

      – henning
      Mar 24 at 17:54











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 19:16
















    Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 15:59





    Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 15:59













    @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

    – Anyon
    Mar 24 at 16:06





    @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

    – Anyon
    Mar 24 at 16:06













    I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 16:22





    I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 16:22




    1




    1





    Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

    – henning
    Mar 24 at 17:54





    Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

    – henning
    Mar 24 at 17:54













    Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 19:16





    Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 19:16











    13














    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    There is also biorxiv covering the missing biomedical scientific branches, much younger than arxiv but there is a quite detailed statistical report on its growth.



    Publication: Attention decay in science (due to exponential growth)



    (To me it's also interesting how this correlates with the number of PhD students in another answer and how this can be explained... did internet boost scientific productivity and/or number of PhD students?!)






    share|improve this answer




















    • 8





      Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

      – Anyon
      Mar 24 at 18:49











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – user847982
      Mar 24 at 18:58











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 19:11











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – user847982
      Mar 24 at 19:16












    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 20:23















    13














    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    There is also biorxiv covering the missing biomedical scientific branches, much younger than arxiv but there is a quite detailed statistical report on its growth.



    Publication: Attention decay in science (due to exponential growth)



    (To me it's also interesting how this correlates with the number of PhD students in another answer and how this can be explained... did internet boost scientific productivity and/or number of PhD students?!)






    share|improve this answer




















    • 8





      Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

      – Anyon
      Mar 24 at 18:49











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – user847982
      Mar 24 at 18:58











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 19:11











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – user847982
      Mar 24 at 19:16












    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 20:23













    13












    13








    13







    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    There is also biorxiv covering the missing biomedical scientific branches, much younger than arxiv but there is a quite detailed statistical report on its growth.



    Publication: Attention decay in science (due to exponential growth)



    (To me it's also interesting how this correlates with the number of PhD students in another answer and how this can be explained... did internet boost scientific productivity and/or number of PhD students?!)






    share|improve this answer















    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    There is also biorxiv covering the missing biomedical scientific branches, much younger than arxiv but there is a quite detailed statistical report on its growth.



    Publication: Attention decay in science (due to exponential growth)



    (To me it's also interesting how this correlates with the number of PhD students in another answer and how this can be explained... did internet boost scientific productivity and/or number of PhD students?!)







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Mar 24 at 19:15

























    answered Mar 24 at 18:46









    user847982user847982

    1,165412




    1,165412







    • 8





      Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

      – Anyon
      Mar 24 at 18:49











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – user847982
      Mar 24 at 18:58











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 19:11











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – user847982
      Mar 24 at 19:16












    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 20:23












    • 8





      Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

      – Anyon
      Mar 24 at 18:49











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – user847982
      Mar 24 at 18:58











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 19:11











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – user847982
      Mar 24 at 19:16












    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 20:23







    8




    8





    Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

    – Anyon
    Mar 24 at 18:49





    Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

    – Anyon
    Mar 24 at 18:49













    @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

    – user847982
    Mar 24 at 18:58





    @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

    – user847982
    Mar 24 at 18:58













    That's not exponential growth, though...

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 19:11





    That's not exponential growth, though...

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 19:11













    @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

    – user847982
    Mar 24 at 19:16






    @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

    – user847982
    Mar 24 at 19:16














    Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 20:23





    Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 20:23











    7














    For the field of mathematics, another source of data is the AMS Math Reviews (MathSciNet), where this type of information is readily available (just search for the year you want). Virtually every reputable math publication gets indexed there nowadays. Also, unlike something like Google Scholar, only reputable journals get indexed and each publication appears only once. Math Reviews is a paid service, so you'd need to be affiliated with a university with a subscription. (I don't know how complete this data is as you go further back in time. Maybe someone else has a better sense of this.)



    For example, here are the total number of mathematics publications for various years at 10-year intervals.



    2018: 111,018;
    2008: 99,268;
    1998: 67,807;
    1988: 55,420;
    1978: 36,637;
    1968: 19,615;
    1958: 10,249;
    1948: 5,456;
    1938: 1,417;
    1928: 1,439;
    1918: 632;
    1908: 729;
    1898: 710;
    1888: 266;
    1878: 181






    share|improve this answer



























      7














      For the field of mathematics, another source of data is the AMS Math Reviews (MathSciNet), where this type of information is readily available (just search for the year you want). Virtually every reputable math publication gets indexed there nowadays. Also, unlike something like Google Scholar, only reputable journals get indexed and each publication appears only once. Math Reviews is a paid service, so you'd need to be affiliated with a university with a subscription. (I don't know how complete this data is as you go further back in time. Maybe someone else has a better sense of this.)



      For example, here are the total number of mathematics publications for various years at 10-year intervals.



      2018: 111,018;
      2008: 99,268;
      1998: 67,807;
      1988: 55,420;
      1978: 36,637;
      1968: 19,615;
      1958: 10,249;
      1948: 5,456;
      1938: 1,417;
      1928: 1,439;
      1918: 632;
      1908: 729;
      1898: 710;
      1888: 266;
      1878: 181






      share|improve this answer

























        7












        7








        7







        For the field of mathematics, another source of data is the AMS Math Reviews (MathSciNet), where this type of information is readily available (just search for the year you want). Virtually every reputable math publication gets indexed there nowadays. Also, unlike something like Google Scholar, only reputable journals get indexed and each publication appears only once. Math Reviews is a paid service, so you'd need to be affiliated with a university with a subscription. (I don't know how complete this data is as you go further back in time. Maybe someone else has a better sense of this.)



        For example, here are the total number of mathematics publications for various years at 10-year intervals.



        2018: 111,018;
        2008: 99,268;
        1998: 67,807;
        1988: 55,420;
        1978: 36,637;
        1968: 19,615;
        1958: 10,249;
        1948: 5,456;
        1938: 1,417;
        1928: 1,439;
        1918: 632;
        1908: 729;
        1898: 710;
        1888: 266;
        1878: 181






        share|improve this answer













        For the field of mathematics, another source of data is the AMS Math Reviews (MathSciNet), where this type of information is readily available (just search for the year you want). Virtually every reputable math publication gets indexed there nowadays. Also, unlike something like Google Scholar, only reputable journals get indexed and each publication appears only once. Math Reviews is a paid service, so you'd need to be affiliated with a university with a subscription. (I don't know how complete this data is as you go further back in time. Maybe someone else has a better sense of this.)



        For example, here are the total number of mathematics publications for various years at 10-year intervals.



        2018: 111,018;
        2008: 99,268;
        1998: 67,807;
        1988: 55,420;
        1978: 36,637;
        1968: 19,615;
        1958: 10,249;
        1948: 5,456;
        1938: 1,417;
        1928: 1,439;
        1918: 632;
        1908: 729;
        1898: 710;
        1888: 266;
        1878: 181







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Mar 24 at 23:25









        mdrmdr

        1263




        1263



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126980%2fglobal-number-of-publications-over-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029