Global number of publications over time The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhy are some PhD holders unable to become professors?Which kinds of academic revolutions has philosophy of science indentified so far and when?Finding number of publications in a subjectTuition cost over timeStudies over how noisy is it to accept/reject submissionsA new model for publications where papers evolve over time?Are there studies testing whether academia rewards researchers based on number of publications?Why do journals have limits on the number of references?Trends on time spent studying over the the past few decades, for students outside the USIEEE journal or conference total number of publications?Publications for small time researchNumber of Papers published in area of work

Is it "common practice in Fourier transform spectroscopy to multiply the measured interferogram by an apodizing function"? If so, why?

Why was Sir Cadogan fired?

How can I start my application in a more convenient way?

Gauss' Posthumous Publications?

Are British MPs missing the point, with these 'Indicative Votes'?

Why can't we say "I have been having a dog"?

Free fall ellipse or parabola?

Maximum number of inputs per transaction

Could a dragon use hot air to help it take off?

How can I separate the number from the unit in argument?

Is it OK to decorate a log book cover?

Is the offspring between a demon and a celestial possible? If so what is it called and is it in a book somewhere?

How can a day be of 24 hours?

Does int main() need a declaration on C++?

Man transported from Alternate World into ours by a Neutrino Detector

Do I need to write [sic] when including a quotation with a number less than 10 that isn't written out?

What happens if you break a law in another country outside of that country?

What is the difference between NTP and validity in Smith's "Logic: The Laws of Truth"?

Was the Stack Exchange "Happy April Fools" page fitting with the 90s code?

Horrendous Scope of Text

Why does the freezing point matter when picking cooler ice packs?

Scale won't save

How exploitable/balanced is this homebrew spell: Spell Permanency?

Is it a bad idea to plug the other end of ESD strap to wall ground?



Global number of publications over time



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhy are some PhD holders unable to become professors?Which kinds of academic revolutions has philosophy of science indentified so far and when?Finding number of publications in a subjectTuition cost over timeStudies over how noisy is it to accept/reject submissionsA new model for publications where papers evolve over time?Are there studies testing whether academia rewards researchers based on number of publications?Why do journals have limits on the number of references?Trends on time spent studying over the the past few decades, for students outside the USIEEE journal or conference total number of publications?Publications for small time researchNumber of Papers published in area of work










26















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?










share|improve this question
























  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    Mar 24 at 15:52











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 16:01











  • 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
    Mar 24 at 23:15















26















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?










share|improve this question
























  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    Mar 24 at 15:52











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 16:01











  • 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
    Mar 24 at 23:15













26












26








26


6






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?










share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 26 at 3:14









JJJ

1605




1605










asked Mar 24 at 15:36









FuzzyLeapfrogFuzzyLeapfrog

4,06011241




4,06011241












  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    Mar 24 at 15:52











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 16:01











  • 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
    Mar 24 at 23:15

















  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    Mar 24 at 15:52











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 16:01











  • 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
    Mar 24 at 23:15
















Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

– Solar Mike
Mar 24 at 15:52





Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

– Solar Mike
Mar 24 at 15:52













The underlying reasons may be related.

– FuzzyLeapfrog
Mar 24 at 16:01





The underlying reasons may be related.

– FuzzyLeapfrog
Mar 24 at 16:01













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
Mar 24 at 23:15





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
Mar 24 at 23:15










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















21














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:



2018 MTS Report



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:



Exponential growth






share|improve this answer

























  • 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
    Mar 24 at 15:59











  • @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
    Mar 24 at 16:06











  • 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
    Mar 24 at 16:22






  • 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
    Mar 24 at 17:54











  • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 19:16


















12














arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



enter image description here



This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



Long-term chart:



enter image description here



Very long-term chart:



enter image description here



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?!)






share|improve this answer




















  • 8





    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
    Mar 24 at 18:49











  • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

    – Michael Schmidt
    Mar 24 at 18:58











  • That's not exponential growth, though...

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 19:11











  • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

    – Michael Schmidt
    Mar 24 at 19:16












  • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 20:23


















7














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






share|improve this answer























    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
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    21














    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:



    2018 MTS Report



    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:



    Exponential growth






    share|improve this answer

























    • 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
      Mar 24 at 15:59











    • @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
      Mar 24 at 16:06











    • 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
      Mar 24 at 16:22






    • 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
      Mar 24 at 17:54











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 19:16















    21














    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:



    2018 MTS Report



    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:



    Exponential growth






    share|improve this answer

























    • 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
      Mar 24 at 15:59











    • @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
      Mar 24 at 16:06











    • 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
      Mar 24 at 16:22






    • 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
      Mar 24 at 17:54











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 19:16













    21












    21








    21







    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:



    2018 MTS Report



    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:



    Exponential growth






    share|improve this answer















    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:



    2018 MTS Report



    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:



    Exponential growth







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Mar 24 at 19:14

























    answered Mar 24 at 15:53









    AnyonAnyon

    8,49123345




    8,49123345












    • 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
      Mar 24 at 15:59











    • @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
      Mar 24 at 16:06











    • 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
      Mar 24 at 16:22






    • 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
      Mar 24 at 17:54











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 19:16

















    • 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
      Mar 24 at 15:59











    • @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
      Mar 24 at 16:06











    • 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
      Mar 24 at 16:22






    • 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
      Mar 24 at 17:54











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      Mar 24 at 19:16
















    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
    Mar 24 at 15:59





    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
    Mar 24 at 15:59













    @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
    Mar 24 at 16:06





    @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
    Mar 24 at 16:06













    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
    Mar 24 at 16:22





    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
    Mar 24 at 16:22




    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
    Mar 24 at 17:54





    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
    Mar 24 at 17:54













    Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 19:16





    Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    Mar 24 at 19:16











    12














    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    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?!)






    share|improve this answer




















    • 8





      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
      Mar 24 at 18:49











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – Michael Schmidt
      Mar 24 at 18:58











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 19:11











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – Michael Schmidt
      Mar 24 at 19:16












    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 20:23















    12














    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    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?!)






    share|improve this answer




















    • 8





      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
      Mar 24 at 18:49











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – Michael Schmidt
      Mar 24 at 18:58











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 19:11











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – Michael Schmidt
      Mar 24 at 19:16












    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 20:23













    12












    12








    12







    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    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?!)






    share|improve this answer















    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    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?!)







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Mar 24 at 19:15

























    answered Mar 24 at 18:46









    Michael SchmidtMichael Schmidt

    926312




    926312







    • 8





      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
      Mar 24 at 18:49











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – Michael Schmidt
      Mar 24 at 18:58











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 19:11











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – Michael Schmidt
      Mar 24 at 19:16












    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 20:23












    • 8





      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
      Mar 24 at 18:49











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – Michael Schmidt
      Mar 24 at 18:58











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 19:11











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – Michael Schmidt
      Mar 24 at 19:16












    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      Mar 24 at 20:23







    8




    8





    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
    Mar 24 at 18:49





    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
    Mar 24 at 18:49













    @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

    – Michael Schmidt
    Mar 24 at 18:58





    @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

    – Michael Schmidt
    Mar 24 at 18:58













    That's not exponential growth, though...

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 19:11





    That's not exponential growth, though...

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 19:11













    @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

    – Michael Schmidt
    Mar 24 at 19:16






    @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

    – Michael Schmidt
    Mar 24 at 19:16














    Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 20:23





    Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

    – nabla
    Mar 24 at 20:23











    7














    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






    share|improve this answer



























      7














      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






      share|improve this answer

























        7












        7








        7







        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






        share|improve this answer













        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







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Mar 24 at 23:25









        mdrmdr

        1263




        1263



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

            Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

            Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?