IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v112y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-017-2440-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is climate change controversy good for science? IPCC and contrarian reports in the light of bibliometrics

Author

Listed:
  • Ferenc Jankó

    (University of Sopron)

  • Judit Papp Vancsó

    (Gyula Roth Technical School of Forestry and Wood Industry)

  • Norbert Móricz

    (Forest Research Institute)

Abstract

Debate and controversy concerning the issue of climate change generally results in the hindering and obstruction of social and governmental action on this issue. This paper analyses the scientific background, i.e. the reference list of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report “The Physical Science Basis” and an alternative climate change report of a US think tank institute “Climate Change Reconsidered II. Physical Science”. We compared these two reports to the antecedent reports from 2007 (IPCC AR4 WGI) and 2009 (Climate Change Reconsidered). For the purposes of the study, we developed a database containing all the references collected from the four reports. The bibliometric analysis focused on the distribution of references among peer reviewed scientific journals and the most frequently cited lead authors that created the basis for the evaluation of their different scientific emphasis. Our findings underline that there is still no convergence between the scientific literature of the IPCC and the contrarian reports; however, the remarkable quantitative development on both sides and the qualitative progress of the IPCC report allows us to draw somewhat surprising conclusions in the context of climate change science. Contrary to expectations, controversy is beneficial to the science of climate change as it fosters the review process on both sides of the debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferenc Jankó & Judit Papp Vancsó & Norbert Móricz, 2017. "Is climate change controversy good for science? IPCC and contrarian reports in the light of bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1745-1759, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2440-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2440-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2440-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2440-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Werner Marx & Robin Haunschild & Andreas Thor & Lutz Bornmann, 2017. "Which early works are cited most frequently in climate change research literature? A bibliometric approach based on Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 335-353, January.
    2. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Srdan Medimorec & Gordon Pennycook, 2015. "The language of denial: text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 597-605, December.
    4. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hui-Zhen Fu & Ludo Waltman, 2022. "A large-scale bibliometric analysis of global climate change research between 2001 and 2018," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-21, February.

    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. Tian-Yuan Huang & Liangping Ding & Yong-Qiang Yu & Lei Huang & Liying Yang, 2023. "From AR5 to AR6: exploring research advancement in climate change based on scientific evidence from IPCC WGI reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5227-5245, September.
    2. Rachel Einecker & Andrew Kirby, 2020. "Climate Change: A Bibliometric Study of Adaptation, Mitigation and Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    4. Jeremiah Bohr, 2017. "Is it hot in here or is it just me? Temperature anomalies and political polarization over global warming in the American public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 271-285, May.
    5. Matthieu Ballandonne & Igor Cersosimo, 2021. "A note on reference publication year spectroscopy with incomplete information," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4927-4939, June.
    6. Mao, Guozhu & Liu, Xi & Du, Huibin & Zuo, Jian & Wang, Linyuan, 2015. "Way forward for alternative energy research: A bibliometric analysis during 1994–2013," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 276-286.
    7. Mary Sanford & James Painter & Taha Yasseri & Jamie Lorimer, 2021. "Controversy around climate change reports: a case study of Twitter responses to the 2019 IPCC report on land," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-25, August.
    8. Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael & Aleixandre-Tudó, José Luis & Castelló-Cogollos, Lourdes & Aleixandre, José Luis, 2018. "Trends in global research in deforestation. A bibliometric analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 293-302.
    9. Li Xu & Dora Marinova, 2013. "Resilience thinking: a bibliometric analysis of socio-ecological research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 911-927, September.
    10. Wei, Yi-Ming & Mi, Zhi-Fu & Huang, Zhimin, 2015. "Climate policy modeling: An online SCI-E and SSCI based literature review," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 57(PA), pages 70-84.
    11. María del Carmen Calatrava Moreno & Thomas Auzinger & Hannes Werthner, 2016. "On the uncertainty of interdisciplinarity measurements due to incomplete bibliographic data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 213-232, April.
    12. Andy Reisinger, 2011. "Interdisciplinarity: are we there yet?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 23-30, September.
    13. Vincent Gitz & Alexandre Meybeck, 2011. "The establishment of the High Level Panel of Experts on food security and nutrition (HLPE). Shared, independent and comprehensive knowledge for international policy coherence in food security and nutr," CIRED Working Papers hal-00866427, HAL.
    14. Dmitry A. Ruban & Natalia N. Yashalova & Olga A. Cherednichenko & Natalya A. Dovgot’ko, 2020. "Climate Change, Agriculture, and Energy Transition: What Do the Thirty Most-Cited Articles Tell Us?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, September.
    15. Drieschova, Alena, 2021. "The social media revolution and shifts in the climate change discourse," Global Cooperation Research Papers 29, University of Duisburg-Essen, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21).
    16. Robin Haunschild & Werner Marx, 2020. "Discovering seminal works with marker papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2955-2969, December.
    17. Jiming Hu & Yin Zhang, 2017. "Discovering the interdisciplinary nature of Big Data research through social network analysis and visualization," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 91-109, July.
    18. Ilan Noy & Shakked Noy, 2022. "The Short-Termism of 'Hard' Economics," CESifo Working Paper Series 10160, CESifo.
    19. Vincent Gitz & Alexandre Meybeck, 2011. "The establishment of the High Level Panel of Experts on food security and nutrition (HLPE). Shared, independent and comprehensive knowledge for international policy coherence in food security and nutr," Working Papers hal-00866427, HAL.
    20. Kate Elizabeth Gannon, Mike Hulme, 2017. "Geoengineering at the ‘edge of the world’: exploring perceptions of ocean fertilization through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation," GRI Working Papers 280, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

    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:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2440-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.