Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T18:13:38.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antarctic science in Chile: a bibliometric analysis of scientific productivity during the 2009–2019 period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2023

Marcelo González-Aravena Open the ORCID record for Marcelo González-Aravena [Opens in a new window] ,
Lucas Krüger ,
Lorena Rebolledo Open the ORCID record for Lorena Rebolledo [Opens in a new window] ,
Ricardo Jaña ,
Anelio Aguayo-Lobo ,
Marcelo Leppe ,
Rodolfo Rondon ,
Francisco Santa-Cruz ,
Carla Salinas Open the ORCID record for Carla Salinas [Opens in a new window]  and
Cristine Trevisan
...Show all authors
Marcelo González-Aravena*
Affiliation:
Departamento Científico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Punta Arenas, Chile
Lucas Krüger
Affiliation:
Departamento Científico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Punta Arenas, Chile Millennium Institute Biodiversity of Antarctic and Subantarctic Ecosystems (BASE), Santiago, Chile
Lorena Rebolledo
Affiliation:
Departamento Científico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Punta Arenas, Chile
Ricardo Jaña
Affiliation:
Departamento Científico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Punta Arenas, Chile
Anelio Aguayo-Lobo
Affiliation:
Departamento Científico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Punta Arenas, Chile
Marcelo Leppe
Affiliation:
Departamento Científico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Punta Arenas, Chile
Rodolfo Rondon
Affiliation:
Departamento Científico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Punta Arenas, Chile
Francisco Santa-Cruz
Affiliation:
Departamento Científico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Punta Arenas, Chile
Carla Salinas
Affiliation:
Departamento Científico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Punta Arenas, Chile
Cristine Trevisan
Affiliation:
Departamento Científico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Punta Arenas, Chile
César A. Cárdenas
Affiliation:
Departamento Científico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Punta Arenas, Chile Millennium Institute Biodiversity of Antarctic and Subantarctic Ecosystems (BASE), Santiago, Chile
*
mgonzalez@inach.cl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The changes implemented in 2005 in the development strategies of Antarctic science carried out by Chile have had a positive impact on the scientific productivity of the Chilean Antarctic Science Program (PROCIEN). We analysed scientometric indicators from between 2009 and 2019. The bibliographic data were extracted from the Web of Science database using search query keywords. We used multiple correspondence analysis to identify specific trends and also network analyses of international collaboration in VOSviewer. The number of Antarctic science publications in Chile has gradually increased from 21 in 2009 to 95 in 2019. The rise in the number of articles was higher in journals for the first impact factor quartile. Research lines showing increased first-quartile impact factor papers corresponded to Antarctic ecosystems, biotechnology and geosciences. The main geographical domains in which such research activities have been carried out corresponded to in the South Shetland Islands and the Antarctic Peninsula. Fieldwork data are the main sources for the production of scientific articles, and there are three science platforms within which most of these papers concentrate. The diversification of funding sources, the implementation of improvements in the selection process and Chile's alignment with Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research programmes have contributed to improving the science that Chile has developed in Antarctica.

Keywords

Chilean Antarctic Program Collaboration networkResearch Antarctic PlatformsWeb of Science
Type
Opinion
Information
Antarctic Science , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2023 , pp. 46 - 59
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antarctic Science Ltd

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartneck, C. & Hu, J. 2010. The fruits of collaboration in a multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 85, 41–52.10.1007/s11192-010-0242-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyadjian, A., Câmara, P., Barros-platiau, A.F. & Albergaria, F. 2020. Grand challenges in Brazilian scientific research in Antarctica. In Barros-Platiau, A.F. & Oliveira, C., eds. Conservation of living resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. BBNJ and Antarctica negotiations. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 212–242.Google Scholar
Bozkurt, D., Rondanelli, R., Marin, J.C. & Garreaud, R. 2018. Foehn event triggered by an atmospheric river underlies record-setting temperature along continental Antarctica. Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, 123, 10.1002/2017JD027796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, S.T., Jabour, J. van den Hoff, J. & Bergstrom, D.M. 2019. Our footprint on Antarctica competes with nature for rare ice-free land. Nature Sustainability, 2, 10.1038/s41893-019-0237-y.10.1038/s41893-019-0237-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Câmara, P., Barros-Platiau, A., Andrade, I. & Hillebrand, G. 2021. Brazil in Antarctica: 40 years of science. Antarctic Science, 33, 30–38.10.1017/S0954102020000449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D., Picard-Aitken, M., Côté, G., Caruso, J., Valentim, R., Edmonds, S., et al. 2010. Bibliometrics as a performance measurement tool for research evaluation: the case of research funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 10.1177/1098214009354774.10.1177/1098214009354774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciocca, D.R. & Delgado, G. 2017. The reality of scientific research in Latin America; an insider's perspective. Cell Stress and Chaperones, 22, 10.1007/s12192-017-0815-8.10.1007/s12192-017-0815-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, M.S., Clarke, A., Cockell, C.S., Convey, P., Detrich, H.W., 3rd, Fraser, K.P., et al. 2004. Antarctic genomics. Comparative and Functional Genomics, 5, 10.1002/cfg.398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cortes, R., Depoortere, D. & Malaver, L. 2018. Astronomy in Chile: assessment of scientific productivity through a bibliometric analysis. EPJ Web of Conferences, 186, 10.1051/epjconf/201818605002.10.1051/epjconf/201818605002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dastidar, P. 2007. National and institutional productivity and collaboration in Antarctic science: an analysis of 25 years of journal publications. Polar Research, 26, 175–180.10.1111/j.1751-8369.2007.00017.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudeney, J.R. & Walton, D.W.H. 2012. Leadership in politics and science within the Antarctic Treaty. Polar Research, 31, 11075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, C.I., Morrison, A.K., Hogg, A., Macaya, E.C., Van Sebille, E., Ryan, P.G., et al. 2018. Antarctica's ecological isolation will be broken by storm-driven dispersal and warming. Nature Climate Change, 8, 704–708.10.1038/s41558-018-0209-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frugone, M.J., Lowther, A., Noll, D., Ramos, B., Pistorius, P., Dantas, G., et al. 2018. Contrasting phylogeographic pattern among Eudyptes penguins around the Southern Ocean. Scientific Reports, 8, 10.1038/s41598-018-35975-3.10.1038/s41598-018-35975-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González-Wevar, C.A., Chown, S.L., Morley, S.A., Coria, N., Saucède, T. & Poulin, E. 2016. Out of Antarctica: quaternary colonization of sub-Antarctic Marion Island by the limpet genus Nacella (Patellogastropoda: Nacellidae). Polar Biology, 39, 10.1007/s00300-014-1620-9.10.1007/s00300-014-1620-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, A.D. & Hughes, K.A. 2016. Demonstration of ‘substantial research activity’ to acquire consultative status under the Antarctic Treaty. Polar Research, 35, 10.3402/polar.v35.3406.10.3402/polar.v35.34061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jang, D., Doh, S. & Choi, Y. 2020. Networks of international co-authorship in journal articles about Antarctic research, 1998–2015. Polar Research, 39, 10.33265/polar.v39.3647.10.33265/polar.v39.3647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ji, Q., Pang, X. & Zhao, X. 2014. A bibliometric analysis of research on Antarctica during 1993–2012. Scientometrics, 101, 10.1007/s11192-014-1332-5.10.1007/s11192-014-1332-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G. & Goldberger, A.S. 1972. Factor analysis by generalized least squares. Psychometrika, 37, 10.1007/BF02306782.10.1007/BF02306782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamalja, K.K. & Khangar, N.V. 2017. Multiple correspondence analysis and its applications. Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis, 10, 432-462.Google Scholar
Kennicutt, M.C., Chown, S.L., Cassano, J.J., Liggett, D., Massom, R., Peck, L.S., et al. 2014. Polar research: six priorities for Antarctic science. Nature, 512, 23–25.10.1038/512023aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennicutt, M.C., Chown, S.L., Cassano, J.J., Liggett, D., Peck, L.S., Massom, R., et al. 2015. A roadmap for Antarctic and Southern Ocean science for the next two decades and beyond. Antarctic Science, 27, 3–18.10.1017/S0954102014000674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennicutt, M.C., Bromwich, D., Liggett, D., Njastad, B., Peck, L., Rintoul, S.R., et al. 2019. Sustained Antarctic research: a 21st century imperative. One Earth, 1, 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.014.10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. & Jung, W.S. 2016. Bibliometric analysis of collaboration network and the role of research station in Antarctic science. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, 15, 10.7232/iems.2016.15.1.092.10.7232/iems.2016.15.1.092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostov, B., Bécue-Bertaut, M. & Husson, F. 2013. Multiple factor analysis for contingency tables in FactoMineR package. R Journal, 5, 28–38.10.32614/RJ-2013-003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauskopf, E. 2008. Plant science research productivity in Chile during the past 20 years. Biological Research, 41, 137–141.10.4067/S0716-97602008000200002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez-Rosales, C., Fullana, N., Musto, H. & Castro-Sowinski, S. 2012. Antarctic DNA moving forward: genomic plasticity and biotechnological potential. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 331, 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2012.02531.x.10.1111/j.1574-6968.2012.02531.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noack, A. 2009. Modularity clustering is force-directed layout. Physical Review E, 79, 10.1103/PhysRevE.79.026102.10.1103/PhysRevE.79.026102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Núñez-Montero, K., Lamilla, C., Abanto, M., Maruyama, F., Jorquera, M.A., Santos, A., et al. 2019. Antarctic Streptomyces fildesensis So13.3 strain as a promising source for antimicrobials discovery. Scientific Reports, 9, 10.1038/s41598-019-43960-7.10.1038/s41598-019-43960-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Órdenes-Aenishanslins, N., Anziani-Ostuni, G., Vargas-Reyes, M., Alarcón, J., Tello, A., & Pérez-Donoso, J.M. 2016. Pigments from UV-resistant Antarctic bacteria as photosensitizers in dye sensitized solar cells. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology. B, Biology, 162, 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2016.08.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Retamales, J. 2014. El continente donde empieza el futuro: A más de medio siglo de la fundación del Instituto Antártico Chileno. Boletín Antártico Chileno, 32, 5–6.Google Scholar
Rondon, R., González-Aravena, M., Font, A., Osorio, M. & Cárdenas, C.A. 2020. Effects of climate change stressors on the prokaryotic communities of the Antarctic sponge Isodictya kerguelenensis. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 10.3389/fevo.2020.00262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shene, C., Garcés, M., Vergara, D., Peña, J., Claverol, S., Rubilar, M. & Leyton, A. 2019. Production of lipids and proteome variation in a Chilean Thraustochytrium striatum strain cultured under different growth conditions. Marine Biotechnology, 21, 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefenon, V.M., Roesch, L.F.W. & Pereira, A.B. 2013. Thirty years of Brazilian research in Antarctica: ups, downs and perspectives. Scientometrics, 95, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stotz, G.C., Salgado-Luarte, C., Rios, R.S., Acuña-Rodriguez, I.S., Carrasco-Urra, F., Molina-Montenegro, M.A. & Gianoli, E. 2013. Trends in Antarctic ecological research in Latin America shown by publications in international journals. Polar Research, 32, 10.3402/polar.v32i0.19993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerhayes, C.P. 2008. International collaboration in Antarctica: the International Polar Years, the International Geophysical Year, and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. Polar Record, 44, 10.1017/ S0032247408007468.10.1017/S0032247408007468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tejedo, P., Gutiérrez, B., Pertierra, L. & Benayas, J. 2015. Analysis of published scientific research from Deception Island, South Shetland Islands. Antarctic Science, 27, 10.1017/S0954102014000455.10.1017/S0954102014000455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eck, N.J. & Waltman, L. 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523–538.10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Noorden, R. 2014. South America by the numbers. Nature, 510, 202–203.10.1038/510202aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vargas-Chacoff, L., Muñoz, J.L.P., Ocampo, D., Paschke, K. & Navarro, J.M. 2019. The effect of alterations in salinity and temperature on neuroendocrine responses of the Antarctic fish Harpagifer antarcticus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 235, 10.1016/j.cbpa.2019.05.029.10.1016/j.cbpa.2019.05.029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yan, E., Wu, C. & Song, M. 2018. The funding factor: a cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact. Scientometrics, 115, 10.1007/s11192-017-2583-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar