The Sciences

Science and the World Economy

What determines the rate of scientific 'growth'?

Neuroskeptic iconNeuroskepticBy NeuroskepticJan 30, 2020 6:00 PM
(Credit: VectorMine/Shutterstock)

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news
 

Back in 2012 I discussed the relentless proliferation of scientific papers. I noted that the number of new papers being published every year seemed to be growing at a rate of roughly 4% per year, on average. By my count, the annual growth rate had never been below 2% since 1997.

I did this by looking at the number of new papers added to PubMed each year. PubMed indexes biomedical research papers. While it doesn't cover all of science, it's probably a good proxy for science as a whole.

I decided to update this analysis for 2020, and I found something surprising: the acceleration of PubMed publications seems to have slowed sharply in about 2015.

Here's the number of papers published each year for 2000 to 2019. There's a clear change in the slope of the curve at 2015, when growth slowed, although it seems to have recovered in 2019.

If we look at the year-on-year increase, we can see the same thing more clearly: 2016, 2017 and 2018 were all relatively slow years. Although the rate of new papers was still growing, the growth was the slowest for 20 years:

What could have caused this cooling-off in the world scientific growth? Well, we can't know for sure.

But that said, it would be tempting to draw a link between the 2016-2018 scientific cool period and the Great Recession of a few years earlier. The global economic slowdown presumably led to a reduction or freeze in science funding.

Just for fun, I took data on global economic growth (GDP per capita year on year) 1961 to 2018 and correlated this with the year on year PubMed paper growth. This indeed revealed a positive correlation, especially when the GDP data were lagged by one year:

In other words, economic growth seems to predict scientific growth.

However, I should stress that this isn't a rigorous analysis. Correlating two time-series is the road to madness (see my criticism of studies that do this). In this case, I think the correlation might be real, but I can't make any strong claims.

1 free article left
Want More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/month
Already a subscriber? Log In or Register
1 free articleSubscribe
Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 70%

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Log In or Register
More From Discover
Recommendations From Our Store
Shop Now
Stay Curious
Join
Our List

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

 
Subscribe
To The Magazine

Save up to 70% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

Copyright © 2021 Kalmbach Media Co.