Global number of publications over time
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
add a comment |
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
Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?
– Solar Mike
yesterday
The underlying reasons may be related.
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
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
yesterday
add a comment |
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
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
publications reference-request
edited 39 mins ago
JJJ
1605
1605
asked yesterday
FuzzyLeapfrogFuzzyLeapfrog
3,96711141
3,96711141
Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?
– Solar Mike
yesterday
The underlying reasons may be related.
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
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
yesterday
add a comment |
Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?
– Solar Mike
yesterday
The underlying reasons may be related.
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
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
yesterday
Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?
– Solar Mike
yesterday
Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?
– Solar Mike
yesterday
The underlying reasons may be related.
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
The underlying reasons may be related.
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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:
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:
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
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
add a comment |
arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:
This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.
Long-term chart:
Very long-term chart:
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?!)
7
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
yesterday
@Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
That's not exponential growth, though...
– nabla
yesterday
@nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.
– nabla
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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:
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:
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
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
add a comment |
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:
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:
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
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
add a comment |
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:
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:
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:
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:
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
AnyonAnyon
8,43123345
8,43123345
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
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
add a comment |
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
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
@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
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
add a comment |
arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:
This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.
Long-term chart:
Very long-term chart:
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?!)
7
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
yesterday
@Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
That's not exponential growth, though...
– nabla
yesterday
@nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.
– nabla
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:
This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.
Long-term chart:
Very long-term chart:
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?!)
7
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
yesterday
@Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
That's not exponential growth, though...
– nabla
yesterday
@nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.
– nabla
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:
This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.
Long-term chart:
Very long-term chart:
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?!)
arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:
This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.
Long-term chart:
Very long-term chart:
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?!)
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Michael SchmidtMichael Schmidt
809312
809312
7
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
yesterday
@Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
That's not exponential growth, though...
– nabla
yesterday
@nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.
– nabla
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
7
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
yesterday
@Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
That's not exponential growth, though...
– nabla
yesterday
@nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.
– nabla
yesterday
7
7
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
@Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
@Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
That's not exponential growth, though...
– nabla
yesterday
That's not exponential growth, though...
– nabla
yesterday
@nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
@nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better
– Michael Schmidt
yesterday
Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.
– nabla
yesterday
Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.
– nabla
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
answered yesterday
mdrmdr
1263
1263
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?
– Solar Mike
yesterday
The underlying reasons may be related.
– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday
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
yesterday