IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v13y2025i1p9-d1589917.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Polarization in BRICS and G7: Scopus-Indexed Journal Production Trends (2013–2023)

Author

Listed:
  • Eungi Kim

    (Department of Library and Information Science, Keimyung University, 1095 Dalgubeoldaero, Dalseo-Gu, Daegu 42601, Republic of Korea)

  • Sureshkrishnan Ramakrishnan

    (Discovery Content Operation, Clarivate Analytics, Anna Salai, Chennai 600002, India)

  • Jason Lim Chiu

    (Department of Business Administration, Keimyung University, 1095 Dalgubeoldaero, Dalseo-Gu, Daegu 42601, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

The objective of this study is to examine disparities in Scopus-indexed journal production between BRICS and G7 countries from 2013 to 2023, focusing on growth trends, open access (OA) and non-OA production, subject representation, and quality metrics. Using data from the SCImago Journal Rank portal, the analysis evaluated growth rates, quartile rankings, and publisher dynamics. G7 countries maintained their global leadership, characterized by stable production systems and high-impact journals predominantly managed by commercial publishers. In contrast, the countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) exhibited diverse trends: China and Russia demonstrated rapid expansion through state-backed initiatives and the rise of domestic publishers, aiming to reduce reliance on foreign publishers and enhance global visibility. However, India experienced a decline, while Brazil and South Africa showed only modest growth in Scopus-indexed journal production. Similarly, G7 countries displayed internal variability, with the UK and Italy achieving notable growth, whereas Japan and France faced declines. These disparities within both groups underscore the critical influence of national research policies and infrastructure on journal production. BRICS countries showed a strong focus on STEM disciplines, with China emerging as a leader in both OA and non-OA journal production. Conversely, G7 countries maintained a balanced representation across STEM and social sciences. These findings suggest that national policies and infrastructure investments are key drivers of journal production growth, with BRICS countries leveraging new initiatives for expansion and G7 countries maintaining dominance through established systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Eungi Kim & Sureshkrishnan Ramakrishnan & Jason Lim Chiu, 2025. "Polarization in BRICS and G7: Scopus-Indexed Journal Production Trends (2013–2023)," Publications, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:13:y:2025:i:1:p:9-:d:1589917
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/13/1/9/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/13/1/9/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2021. "The Matthew effect impacts science and academic publishing by preferentially amplifying citations, metrics and status," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5373-5377, June.
    2. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    3. Reggie Raju & Jill Claassen & Kaela De Lillie, 2023. "Social Justice: The Golden Thread in the Openness Movement," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Oliveira, Thaiane Moreira & de Albuquerque, Sofia & Toth, Janderson Pereira & Bello, Debora Zava, 2018. "International cooperation networks of the BRICS bloc," SocArXiv b6x43, Center for Open Science.
    2. Jesse L. Reynolds & Edward A. Parson, 2020. "Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 323-342, May.
    3. Najko Jahn & Lisa Matthias & Mikael Laakso, 2022. "Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher‐provided metadata: An article‐level study of Elsevier," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(1), pages 104-118, January.
    4. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    5. Yurij L. Katchanov & Yulia V. Markova, 2017. "The “space of physics journals”: topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 313-333, October.
    6. Pei Chen & Shan Gao & Fan Jiang & Yifang Ma, 2024. "Measuring the labor market outcomes of universities: evidence from China’s listed company executives," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5715-5730, September.
    7. Jussi T. S. Heikkila, 2022. "Journal of Economic Literature codes classification system (JEL)," Papers 2207.06076, arXiv.org.
    8. Wrzesinski, Marcel & Riechert, Patrick Urs & Dubois, Frédéric & Katzenbach, Christian, 2021. "Working with publication technology to make open access journals sustainable," EconStor Preprints 231355, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    9. William H. Walters, 2022. "Can differences in publisher size account for the relatively low prices of the journals available to master’s universities through commercial publishers’ databases? The importance of price discriminat," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 1065-1097, February.
    10. Abdelghani Maddi & Emmanuel Monneau & Catherine Guaspare-Cartron & Floriana Gargiulo & Michel Dubois, 2024. "Streetlight effect in PubPeer comments: are Open Access publications more scrutinized?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4231-4247, July.
    11. Philipp Kohlgruber & Christoph Kuzmics, 2017. "The distribution of article quality and inefficiencies in the market for scientific journals," Graz Economics Papers 2017-11, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    12. Katchanov, Yurij L. & Markova, Yulia V. & Shmatko, Natalia A., 2023. "Empirical demonstration of the Matthew effect in scientific research careers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    13. Chris H. J. Hartgerink & Marino Van Zelst, 2018. "“As-You-Go” Instead of “After-the-Fact”: A Network Approach to Scholarly Communication and Evaluation," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, April.
    14. Mark Armstrong, 2021. "Plan S: An economist's perspective," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2017-2026, December.
    15. Jack E. James, 2020. "Pirate open access as electronic civil disobedience: Is it ethical to breach the paywalls of monetized academic publishing?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(12), pages 1500-1504, December.
    16. Morgan, Thomas J. H. & Smaldino, Paul E., 2024. "Author-Paid Publication Fees Corrupt Science and Should Be Abandoned," OSF Preprints 3ez9v, Center for Open Science.
    17. Yangping Zhou, 2021. "Self-citation and citation of top journal publishers and their interpretation in the journal-discipline context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6013-6040, July.
    18. Irina D. Turgel & Olga A. Chernova, 2024. "Open Science Alternatives to Scopus and the Web of Science: A Case Study in Regional Resilience," Publications, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, November.
    19. Morretta, Valentina & Vurchio, Davide & Carrazza, Stefano, 2022. "The socio-economic value of scientific publications: The case of Earth Observation satellites," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    20. Julie Baldwin & Stephen Pinfield, 2018. "The UK Scholarly Communication Licence: Attempting to Cut through the Gordian Knot of the Complexities of Funder Mandates, Publisher Embargoes and Researcher Caution in Achieving Open Access," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:13:y:2025:i:1:p:9-:d:1589917. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.