Internationalization of Psychological Research: Publications and Collaborations of the United States and Other Leading Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We undertook this study to assess whether trends toward declining U.S. dominance and increasing international authorship exist in psychology journals. We collected data on the national affiliations of authors in 16 primary and 3 secondary journals from the United States, and 4 international journals published over 3 decades. Although analyses showed the United States continued to dominate overall and in most specialties, there were significant declines in the proportion of U.S.-authored publications after the year 2000, most in experimental psychology and least within social/personality and clinical/health psychology. In primary journals, publications were largely (97.8%) from the United States, and 13 leading countries defined by publication performance: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (U.K.). The topic focus (on experimental psychology) of the 13 leading countries differed from that emphasized in the United States. (clinical/health psychology). Frequency of international collaborations steadily increased across the period of study, mostly among leading countries of comparable achievement, in proximity, or with similar language and culture. Research collaborations involving U.S. psychologists were more often with colleagues from other states than with those from other countries. Although the study suggests that productivity within psychology may be just as imbalanced internationally as it has been for decades, a great deal has changed: the United States is no longer seen as the sole contributor; the research of other countries, especially from Western Europe, have risen to where at least in certain fields it has taken on a larger role in shaping the direction of research.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".