A BIBLIOMETRIC/GEOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT OF 40 YEARS OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING RESEARCH (1969–2009)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bibliometric rankings are quite common in the field of software engineering. For example, there are a series of ranking repeated every year which identify the top researchers and institutions at the international level in the field. There are also other studies to determine the most cited articles in software engineering journals, the most popular research topics in this area, or identify the top researchers and institutions in regional levels. However, there exists no existing bibliometric quantitative analysis of publications in the area of software engineering (SE), including relative and absolute growth in the number of all SE publications as well as an analysis among countries. This is the main goal and motivation of this article. Besides, this study intends to provide an overall quantitative trend of the software engineering papers, and compare that trend to research output in other areas of science. The bibliometric study reported in this paper is motivated by the fact that understanding the amount of geographical research contributions to the field of software engineering can help identify different countries’ level of commitment to support research activities in this area over years. We analyze how the contribution levels of top-ranked countries have changed over the years and how SE compares to other disciplines of engineering and science. Among the most interesting findings of this study are: (1) Over 40 years, in total about 60% of the SE literature has been contributed by only 7% of all countries, (2) the SE research output of different countries does not necessarily correlate with their GDPs, (3) the share of contributions to the SE discipline by the American researchers has declined from 71.43% (in 1980) to 14.90% (in 2008), and (4) China is the country with the biggest share growth in the number of publications (from 0.82% of the entire SE publications in 1991 to 13.82% in 2009).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.253 | 0.153 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it