English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

During the last two decades, India has emerged as a major knowledge producerin the world, however different reports put it at different ranks, varying from3rd to 9th places. The recent commissioned study reports of Department ofScience and Technology (DST) done by Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics, rankIndia at 5thand 9th places, respectively. On the other hand, an independentreport by National Science Foundation (NSF) of United States (US), ranks Indiaat 3rd place on research output in Science and Engineering area. Interestingly,both, the Elsevier and the NSF reports use Scopus data, and yet surprisinglytheir outcomes are different. This article, therefore, attempts to investigateas to how the use of same database can still produce different outcomes, due todifferences in methodological approaches. The publication counting method usedand the subject selection approach are the two main exogenous factorsidentified to cause these variations. The implications of the analyticaloutcomes are discussed with special focus on policy perspectives.

India's rank and global share in scientific research -- how publication counting method and subject selection can vary the outcomes