STS Between Centers and Peripheries:
How Transnational are Leading STS Journals?

Figure 1 clearly shows the number of publications of the set of journals examined during the decade 2010–2019, by regions and countries (some additional data are shown in table 7 and annex 1a–b). Three countries stand out due to their high production of articles: the United States (1404), the United Kingdom (855), and China (756). However, their participation in the STS field is very uneven: while the first two countries have papers distributed in almost all journals, China has 85% of its publications in SCI. In the following two intervals, we find Spain (428 articles), Germany (422), the Netherlands (382), Italy (318), Canada (261), France (195), Denmark (188), Australia (186) and Belgium (172). Within this group—Spain, unlike the rest—shows a strong concentration of publications in SCI (59%).

Figure 1. Distribution of STS publications in all journals by country (2010–2019). Source: Web of Science.

The space outside the Western-European-North-American hegemonic center of the field is heterogeneous. The map shows spaces that are completely empty. Most African countries, portions of Central and South Asia, and South America and the Caribbean do not have any articles in the journals examined. Also, the countries in Eastern Europe present a low contribution, similar to Latin America. Australia and South Korea are in a better position, with 186 and 178 articles respectively, although they have very different profiles: while Australian publications are distributed in several areas of the field, with 90% of the South Korean ones focus on the S&T policy/innovation and scientometrics. They are followed by Brazil (143 articles), Japan (116) and India (100) in the following band. The S&T/innovation and scientometrics studies constitute, respectively, 94%, 76%, and 95% of their publications. South Africa and Iran are placed at the bottom edge of the band with slightly more than 50 articles. Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Singapore, Russia and New Zealand are in the 21–50 band, with a few other countries, while the rest corresponds to the lighter color. It is worth observing an integration trend of newcomer countries to the STS field through the area of S&T policy/innovation and scientometrics. From the last countries mentioned, only New Zealand and Singapore have around 40 % of their articles in the socio-anthropological STS area, and Israel a quarter of them.^[6]

Figure 2a shows the publications distribution of the journals that focus on S&T policy/innovation (SPP, RP and RE). The group that comprises the United States (392 articles) and the United Kingdom (313) stands out, together they represent 30% of the total number of articles with that profile; adding Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, that percentage rises to 52%. In the second group, China positions alongside other Western-European–North-American countries, such as Canada, Spain, France, and Sweden, that add another 20% of the scientific production. According to the number of articles published, the third group is composed of Brazil, Australia, and Japan, and then other countries with lower participation follow. Despite the predominance of the traditional centers of scientific production, these journals start giving visibility to works of a more diverse group of countries, though the number of papers is still low.

Figure 2b shows that the concentration in a few countries is much more significant in the journals specialized in the socio-anthropological STS (MIN, ESTS, PUS, ST&HV, SSS, T&C, S&TS, SasC). The United States and the United Kingdom represent 32% (742) and 18% (425), respectively. The Netherlands, Canada, and Germany join them with more than 100 articles each, comprising all together 15% of the total publications. Collectively, these countries hegemonize this area of the field, with 65% of the publications. Outside the Western-European–North-American axis, only Australia stands out, with 72 articles in the aforementioned period.

Figure 2a. Distribution of publications of the journals that focus on S&T policy/innovation (SPP, RP and RE), by country (2010–2019). Source: Web of Science. Figure 2b. Distribution of publications of the journals that focus on socio-anthropological STS (MIN, ESTS, PUS, ST&HV, SSS, T&C, S&TS, SasC), by country (2010–2019). Source: Web of Science. Figure 2c. Distribution of publications of the journal Scientometrics (SCIE), by country (2010–2019). Source: Web of Science.

Figure 2c corresponds to the journal Scientometrics (SCIE), where the distribution is more balanced. China leads the publications widely, with 21%, against 9% belonging to the United States and 8% to Spain. Korea contributes with the same share (4%) as Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, whereas Brazil and India have 3% each. A group of countries, including Iran, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Turkey, and South Africa, have more than 30 articles published. Table 6 and Annex 1a–b and Annex 2 show more details of the Scientometrics case. This journal stands out due to the number of articles published, its greater geographical scope and because it is the main entrance to the STS field for several countries. It is noticeable that its presence is relatively stronger in non-hegemonic regions of the field: it constitutes almost 90% of the publications in the South of Asia, almost 70% in the East Asia and Pacific, and more than 60% in the Middle East and North of Africa and in Latin America and the Caribbean. Meanwhile, it only represents one-fifth of the North American publications and one-third of the European ones. Moreover, its importance in Europe is led by Spain, which, in general, is not a leading country regarding publications, but has some renowned research centers in scientometrics.

Table 6. Number of Articles Published in all Journals, and Share of Scientometrics’ Articles, by Region (2010–2019). Source: Web of Science.

Table 7. Publications of Top 20 Countries According to the Profile of the Journals. Source: Web of Science.

A complementary analysis results from examining the profile of publications of each country. Table 7 shows the 20 countries with most publications in all journals. The United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Canada, and Finland are specialized in publications on socio-anthropological STS. Italy, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden turn to S&T policy and innovation, whereas Norway and France move through both fields with similar intensity. China, India, Spain, Brazil, Korea, Belgium, and Japan focus their publications on scientometrics studies. Australian papers are distributed between the latter and the socio-anthropological studies. Whereas the central countries, even having specializations or different emphasis among areas, tend to cover the three thematic profiles, the non-hegemonic ones have a greater presence in the area of scientometrics and in the S&T policy/innovation studies.

Discussion

We started by asking to what extent STS leading journals have transnationalized, publishing studies carried out outside the Western-European–North-American axis. The answer is that the historical centers of the field maintain their hegemony, dominating, therefore, the research agendas, the discussions, the conceptual formulations, and the empirical cases presented in the articles. We could talk about a centers-peripheries relationship in STS that, far from over, is reproduced with current publication practices. However, it is necessary to qualify that relationship better. The data presented in this paper, show that the relationship between centers and peripheries not only has structural elements that endure but also dynamic elements whose fluctuation requires explanations

We identified both some reconstructions of the centers and movements in the peripheries of the field. Although the dominance of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany is maintained in the publications, other references emerge, varying according to the STS area under consideration. As in other fields of knowledge, the total production of China increased dramatically, although focused on scientometrics. Several countries of East Asia and Latin America opened-up spaces in the areas of scientometrics and S&T policy and innovation, whereas Australia did it in socio-anthropological STS. Meanwhile, a vast peripheral space remains invisible in the leading journals.

The reduced presence of the peripheries in these publications can be explained by two set of causes: on the one hand, because of a relative historical fragility of peripheral STS, even though some regional STS scientific communities have strengthened in recent years. On the other hand, it is the result of the ways in which centers and peripheries are co-produced. Peripheries have their own dynamic in the STS field, materialized, as already mentioned, in academic courses, associations, publications and conferences in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Some of these regions produced their own discussions regarding this matter, even before joining mainstream STS studies in the 1980s and ’90s, based on non-constructivist conceptual matrices: for instance, Latin America in the ’60s and ’70s, focused on science policy, on technological autonomy and on the relationship between science and social change, while India did so in the ’70s and ’80s, encouraged by strong social movements and their criticism to the post-colonial modernizing project.

We then looked into whether there exist some regularities in such publications that allow us to hypothesize about the relationships between the hegemonic regions of the field and the peripheral spaces where STS flourish. Our research shows that STS does not reproduce pari passu the relationship between centers and peripheries of “hard sciences,” the object of study that concentrated a large part of STS research, and this relationship is not static either: it suffices, as an example, highlight the meteoric projection of China in several scientific domains. Those countries in central scientific positions are distinguished by their capacity not only to design the research agendas, but also to apply the knowledge produced. In the peripheral regions, such as Latin America, the scientific agendas of the center are assumed, but there exist systematic failures to use the results, whether because they do not meet their needs or because of lack of technological or industrial capabilities (Kreimer and Thomas 2006).

What happens in the STS field? There is a clear difference between the countries that produce STS reflections about central science and the ones that make them about peripheral science. In other words, the object of study of the peripheral STS is, in itself, peripheral, and that condition is translated into a weak presence of the STS—of several regions worldwide—in leading journals.^[7] Part of this production is published in journals outside the central circuits, and in the case of Latin America, in Spanish, or Portuguese. However, this deepens its peripherality not only in relation to the most dynamic centers (that usually ignore this production), but also in relation to other peripheral contexts that cannot read these languages and, therefore, know and share research findings. Certainly, it is necessary to investigate whether this happens because the topics linked to the peripheral science are not of interest to the leading journals, or because the discussion locus is not there—but in the regions of origin themselves.

Although it certainly demands further research, the previous hypothesis proves to be plausible when examining the different center-periphery dynamics according to the specialization areas of the journals—an aspect that contributes to answering our question regarding possible different transnationalization paths among mainstream journals. The participation of the peripheries varies considerably according to the journals’ profile. Those specializing in scientometrics and scientific policy and innovation are much more open to contributions of a comprehensive group of non-hegemonic countries than the socio-anthropological STS journals. We argue that this unequal dynamic is explained by the different objects of study and methodological resources involved.

The well-defined, standardized, and considerably consensual scientometrics techniques, as well as the generalized use of the same databases, which are increasingly accessible from institutions in peripheral countries (Web of Science and Scopus), are factors that allow broader participation in Scientometrics. These techniques and databases even reduce the relative importance of languages, as their access is possible with only basic English skills. The specificity of the method and the purpose of the journal seem to be more decisive than its application in central or peripheral contexts. Thus, the peripheries, including Latin America, are visible in SCI, and China has taken the lead. It may be considered that such standardization requires the inclusion of peripheral cases, given the desired universalization of the knowledge published, while the comparisons among regions follow clearly established patterns. In addition to these considerations, it is worth noting the coupling trends of transnationalization of Scientometrics and “the metric tide” (Thelwall et al. 2015); that is, the pervasive global use of quantitative indicators to evaluate science production and academic performance. As this evaluative culture became ubiquitous, so did the use of the techniques, although not always with the necessary rigor, as stated in DORA (2014) and other similar manifestos (Invernizzi and Davyt 2019).

In the journals specializing in science policy and innovation studies, the object of study is the factor that enables a greater international circulation: scientific and innovation policy tend to be highly isomorphic once countries with different levels of development emulate those of central countries (Velho 2011; Godin 2009). Although the instruments, resources and results of such policies may vary, the object remains relatively similar, and the way it appears in different regions seem to attract leading journals’ interest. Besides, theoretical consensus around evolutionary and institutionalist economy in this field (Brandão and Bagattolli 2017) facilitates the dialogue among researchers in different regions.

The journals with the lower transnationalization focus on socio-anthropological STS. Paradoxically, the subfield from which there has been stronger insistence on the situatedness of S&T is the one that looks less at “other spaces” of knowledge production. In these journals, the privileged object of study is hegemonic science and its embeddedness in the social contexts where it is produced, studied on the basis of theoretical frameworks generated in such spaces. Peripheral science, studied by peripheral STS communities, does not reach mainstream STS literature. As Baber (2003) has argued a while ago for the social sciences in general, and Kreimer (2022) demonstrates for the STS field, there is evidence that peripheral scholars are forced, explicitly or implicitly, to justify their analysis geographically so that they can take part in mainstream journals, as well as limit their theoretical production. A task for the future is to verify whether the production of peripheral STS, published in local journals, differs in topics, theoretical approaches, and methodologies of the production that reaches mainstream journals.

Other factors may have an impact on the scarce participation of peripheral STS in leading journals, such as the fragility of the field in those places or the difficulties to reach these journals due to, for instance, language barriers. It may also come from biases of leading journals, of the authors’ failure to meet the standards of these publications, of lack of funding for translations and editing, or for paying Article Processing Charges (APCs).

It is necessary, indeed, to consider the aforementioned linguistic issue. Centers and peripheries in conventional geopolitical terms are intertwined here with the ones of the STS field, since non-English speaking central countries, given their linguistic policies, succeed in increasing the visibility of their STS production by publishing in English. Such is the case of Germany, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries and, more recently, this condition has extended to countries such as Japan, Israel, Singapore and, with more restrictions due to its thematic specificity, China. In contrast, the low performance of French authors in the journals in our sample is striking, taking into account that outstanding authors in the field such as Bruno Latour and Michel Callon, and a very influential school, come from this country. When the disadvantages in linguistic terms join the peripheral condition on geopolitical terms, the visibility of the field tends to be lower. In short, the linguistic inequality tends to reinforce the prestige of the center production and the peripheral character of the production in other regions.

Moreover, as we pointed out above, not all objects of study (scientific development, social relations, etc.) can be internationalized in the same way, and usually peripheral science engages in discussions different from the ones that take place at the centers. There is still another factor: some STS communities in the peripheries, due to political beliefs or because they constitute relevant locus of discussion, encourage the publication in the author’s own language, at the expense of the journals published in English. For instance, the Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO) advises, in a document addressed to science policy makers in Latin American countries:

The evaluation systems should not reward the production in English but support multilingualism, fostering not only official languages such as Spanish and Portuguese but also the production, communication and circulation of science in indigenous (native) languages of the region
(CLACSO-FOLEC 2020, 10).

Conclusions

Notwithstanding the (at least rhetoric) interest shown by most leading journals in internationalizing their publications, the results are limited. The subfield with less internationalization is, paradoxically, socio-anthropological STS, despite reflections on post-coloniality and the provincialization of STS.

Our hypothesis is that there are, within the field, objects (scientific policy, innovation) and methods (scientometrics) that prove to be more universal and consensual, facilitating the shaping of a transnational discussion. In these cases, the linguistic obstacles and publishing policies (costs, quality requirements, etc.) do not seem to be so decisive for the transnationalization of journal authorship and content. Peripheral science, as an object of study for peripheral socio-anthropological STS, has proved to be the least visible matter in the leading journals. We point out three possible causes that need further research:

1. The STS produced in the historical centers of the field has not had interest either in the “situated knowledge” outside the international scientific mainstream, or in the conceptual tools proposed by the peripheries in order to explain non-hegemonic science and technology.
2. The linguistic barrier may be a greater obstacle in this journals’ profile, either by a more abstract sociological type of discussion; or because it implies to adopt theoretical approaches published in English, that are not necessarily useful in peripheral contexts; or, still, because there is a political stance of promoting publications in the local language and venues.
3. There are, in the peripheries, fruitful discussion forums about peripheral socio-anthropological STS, where the interlocutors share a context, and maybe approaches, whereas the communication with other contexts is just emerging and more difficult.
   

The relational character of centers and peripheries of the field is a consequence of the historical and geopolitical characteristics whose stability makes them look like domination structures that are constantly reproduced. Simultaneously, such relationships are dynamic, and they open interstitial spaces for the centers and the peripheries to be transformed. Focusing on what is published means shading light, in turn, on what is marginalized. Or, in STS terms, centers enact peripheries and vice versa. By being invisible or set aside, the academic production in certain parts of the world becomes peripheral— turning irrelevant—for other regions and for the development of academic work.

In this regard, a certain correlation seems to operate: the ones who take non-hegemonic sciences and technologies as objects of research are placed within the STS international field as peripheral. Naturally, as in the correspondence between socio-economic development and scientific development, in the foregoing there is a structural aspect that can be verified throughout the past few decades, but it would be a mistake to suppose that these positions are not subject to inflections and transformations, sometimes significant ones. For example, while Japan has been, for many decades, a key center of scientific and, mainly, technological production, its place in the STS field is, relatively speaking, much more peripheral than the one in other countries less scientifically dynamic, such as Spain or Denmark. Conversely, the Netherlands appear clearly over-represented in the STS production in connection with its scientific and technological system. It is clear that, however, multi-dimensional marginalization is reproduced in countries whose scientific systems are barely emerging, like in Sub-Saharan Africa or some Latin American countries.

One final thought about the STS field in Latin America that, in the current context, faces the tension between broadening its internationalization and strengthening its internal development, is worth mentioning. Fostering a greater internationalization, necessarily in English, would help making its own objects “universal”. On the other hand, deepening the field inwards, in order to generate more robust theoretical frameworks that meet the strengthening of local agendas and the regional STS field—a task to be carried out with a predominance of Spanish and Portuguese—leads to prioritizing the local relevance of its own developments, and the interlocutors from within the region. The resolution of this tension—and, maybe, a synthesis—does not depend only on the region but on how the combined dynamics of the centers and peripheries of the field evolves.

Annex

Annex 1a. Total STS Publications by Country (2010–2019). Source: Web of Science.

Annex 1b. Total STS Publications by Country (2010–2019) continued. Source: Web of Science.

Annex 2. Number of Publications in Scientometrics by Country (2010-2019). Source: Web of Science.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Sofia Foladori for her support in the data collection and tabulation. Noela Invernizzi thanks the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the funding provided (Process 301420/2019-0). Leandro Rodriguez Medina thanks the Institut des Hautes Etudes de l’Amérique Latine at Sorbonne Nouvelle and the Centre Population et Développement at IRD/Paris Descartes for providing the conditions to work on this article during his visiting stay in Spring 2021.

Author Biographies

Noela Invernizzi is a Full Professor at the Education Faculty and the Public Policy Graduate Program at the Federal University of Parana, Brazil, and Researcher of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). She researches technology and labor, emerging technologies in developing countries, and science policy.

Amilcar Davyt is Professor at the Science and Development Unit of the Faculty of Sciences at the University of the Republic, Uruguay. He works on science, technology, society and development, and public policies.

Pablo Kreimer is a CONICET Full Researcher, the director of the Science, Technology and Society Center at Maimonides University and Full Professor of the National University of Quilmes, Argentina. His research interests include the production and use of knowledge, the development and structure of scientific fields, and the scientific relations between core and peripheral countries.

Leandro Rodriguez-Medina is a Visiting Professor of Sociology at the Autonomous Metropolitan University-Azcapotzalco, member of the National System of Researchers at the Mexican Council for Science and Technology and founding editor-in-chief of Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society.

References

Albornoz, Denisse, Angela Okune, and Leslie Chan. 2020. “Can Open Scholarly Practices Redress Epistemic Injustice?” In Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, edited by Martin P. Eve and Jonathan Gray, 65-79. Cambridge, MA and London, England: MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0009.

Anderson, Warwick. 2017. “Postcolonial Specters of STS.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 11(2): 229–233.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3828937.

Baber, Zaheer. 2003. “Provincial Universalism: The Landscape of Knowledge Production in an Era of Globalization.” Current Sociology 51(6): 615–623.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516004.

Babini, Dominique. 2020. “Toward a Global Open-Access Scholarly Communications System: A Developing Region Perspective.” In Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access, edited by Martin P. Eve and Jonathan Gray, 331-341. Cambridge, MA and London, England: MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0033.

Biagioli, Mario, and Alexandra Lippman, eds. 2020. Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research. Infrastructures Series. Cambridge, MA and London, England: MIT Press.
http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.001.0001.

Bianco, Mariela, Natalia Gras, and Judith Sutz. 2016. “Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development?” Minerva 54(4): 399–421.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9306-9.

Brandão, Tiago, and Carolina Bagattolli. 2017. “‘Best Practices’ as Mimesis? Innovation Policies in Peripheral Countries.” In Critical Studies of Innovation, edited by Benoît Godin and Dominique Vinck, 48–67. Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367229.00011.

Budzinski, Oliver, Thomas Grebel, Jens Wolling, and Xijie Zhang. 2020. “Drivers of Article Processing Charges in Open Access.” Scientometrics 124(3): 2185–2206.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03578-3.

Chen, Ruey-Lin. 2017. “This Way Does Not Come to the Point: Comments on ‘Provincializing STS: Postcoloniality, Symmetry, and Method.’” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 11(2): 251–256.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3825960.

Chubin, Daryl E., and Edward J. Hackett. 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. SUNY Series in Science, Technology, and Society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales-Foro Latinoamericano de Evaluación Científica (CLACSO-FOLEC). 2020. Para una Transformación de la Evaluación de la Ciencia en América Latina y el Caribe. Diagnóstico y Propuestas para una Iniciativa Regional. [Towards a Transformation of Research Assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. Diagnosis and Proposals for a Regional Initiative] Buenos Aires: CLACSO.
http://FOLEC-EVALUANDO-ESPANOL.pdf (www.clacso.org).

Dahler-Larsen, Peter. 2018. “Making Citations of Publications in Languages Other than English Visible: On the Feasibility of a PLOTE-Index.” Research Evaluation 27(3): 212–221.
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy010.

Davyt, Amilcar, and Léa Velho. 2000. “Avaliação da ciência e a revisão por pares: passado e presente. como derá o futuro?” [Evaluation in Science and Peer Review: Past and Present. How will the future be?] História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 7(1): 93–116.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702000000200005.

Dear, Peter, and Sheila Jasanoff. 2010. “Dismantling Boundaries in Science and Technology Studies.” Isis 101(4): 759–774.
https://doi.org/10.1086/657475.

De Filippo, Daniela. 2014. “Visibilidad internacional del campo CTS en Latinoamérica a través de su producción científica.” [International Visibility of Latin American STS Based on Scientific Production] In Perspectivas Latinoamericanas en el estudio social de la ciencia, la tecnología y la sociedad [Latin American Perspectives in the Study of Science, Technology and Society], edited by Pablo Kreimer, Hebe M. C. Vessuri, Léa Vehlo, and Antonio Arellano. First Edition, 113–136. Ciencia y Tecnología. México: Siglo XXI.

De Filippo, Daniela, and Luciano Levin. 2017. “Detección y análisis de ‘clústers bibliográficos’ en las publicaciones de Iberoamérica sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad (1970–2013).” [Detection and Analysis of ‘Bibliographic Clusters’ in Iberoamerican Publications on Science, Technology and Society (1970-2013)] Investigación Bibliotecológica: Archivonomía, Bibliotecología e Información S1: 123-148.
https://doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2017.nesp1.57888.

Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). 2014. “San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.” Accessed February 17, 2022.
https://sfdora.org/read/.

Dubois, Michel, Yves Gingras, and Claude Rosental. 2016. “Pratiques et rhétoriques de l’internationalisation des sciences.” [Practices and Rhetoric of the Internationalization of Science] Revue Française de Sociologie 57(3): 407-415.
https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.573.0407.

Feld, Adriana, and Pablo Kreimer. 2019. “¿Cosmopolitismo o subordinación? La participación de científicos Latinoamericanos en programas europeos: motivaciones y dinámicas analizadas desde el punto de vista de los líderes Europeos.” [Cosmopolitanism or Subordination? Latin American Scientists’ Participation in European Programs: Motivations and Dynamics Analyzed from the European Scientific Leaders’ Point Of View] História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 26(3): 779–799.
https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-59702019000300004.

Gerber, Alexander, Peter Broks, Markus Gabriel, Lars Lorenz, et al. 2020. Science Communication Research: An Empirical Field Analysis. Berlin: Innovare Edition.
https://www.ecsite.eu/activities-and-services/resources/science-communication-research-empirical-field-analysis

Godin, Benoît. 2009. “The Making of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Conceptual Frameworks as Narratives (1945–2005).” Montréal: Centre Urbanisation, Culture, Societé, Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique.

Grass, Natalia, Daniel Inclán, Carlos E. Rodríguez, and Gonzalo Varela. 2018. La evaluación de los académicos: Instituciones y Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, aciertos y controversias [The Evaluation of Academics: Institutions and National System of Researchers, Successes and Controversies], edited by Graciela I. B. Areous and Giovanna V. Nigrini. First Edition. Ciudad de México: FLACSO-México.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt21kk1b9.

Hackett, Edward J., John N. Parker, Niki Vermeulen, and Bart Penders. 2017. “The Social and Epistemic Organization of Scientific Work.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, Fourth Edition, 733–764. Cambridge, MA and London, England: The MIT Press.

Halffman, Willem, and Hans Radder. 2015. “The Academic Manifesto: From an Occupied to a Public University.” Minerva 53(2): 165–187.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9270-9.

Harding, Sandra G. 2008. Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialities, and Modernities. Next Wave: New Directions in Women’s Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

⸻. 2011. “Beyond Postcolonial Theory: Two Undertheorized Perspectives on Science and Technology.” In The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader, edited by Sandra G. Harding, 1–30. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Herrera, Amílcar O. [1971] 2015. Ciencia y política en América Latina. [Science and Politics in Latin America] Ciudad de México: Siglo XXI.

Hicks, Diana. 2006. “The Dangers of Partial Bibliometric Evaluation in the Social Sciences.” Economia Politica 23(2): 145–162.
https://doi.org/10.1428/22461.

Hicks, Diana, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke, et al. 2015. “Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics.” Nature 520: 429–431.
https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a.

Invernizzi, Noela, and Amilcar Davyt. 2019. “Críticas recientes a la evaluación de la investigación: ¿vino nuevo en odres viejos?” [Recent Critiques of Scientific Evaluation: New Wine into Old Wineskins?] Redes. Revista de Estudios Sociales De La Ciencia Y La Tecnología 25(49): 233–252.
https://revistaredes.unq.edu.ar/index.php/redes/article/view/78.

Jasanoff, Sheila. 2010. “A Field of Its Own: The Emergence of Science and Technology Studies.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert Frodeman, Julie T. Klein, and Carl Mitcham, 191–205. First Edition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Keller, Evelyn F. 2017. “Language Matters—in Science, as in Science Studies.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 11(3): 423–431.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-4149080.

Kreimer, Pablo. 2015. “Los mitos de la ciencia: desventuras de la investigación, estudios sobre ciencia y poíticas científicas.” [Myths of Science: Misadventures of Research, Studies About Science and Scientific Policies] Nómadas 42: 33–51.

⸻. 2022. “Constructivist Paradoxes Part 1: Critical Thoughts about Provincializing, Globalizing, and Localizing STS from a Non-Hegemonic Perspective.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 8(2): 159–175.
https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.1109.

Kreimer, Pablo, and Hernán Thomas. 2006. “Production des connaissances dans la science périphérique: l’hypothèse CANA en Argentine.” [Knowledge Production in Peripheral Science: the AKNA Hypothesis in Argentina] In La société des savoirs: trompe-l’œil ou perspectives? [The Knowledge Society: Trompe-l’oeil or Accurate Perspective?], edited by Michel Carton and Jean-Baptiste Meyer, 143–167. Travail et Mondialisation. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Kreimer, Pablo, and Hebe Vessuri. 2018. “Latin American Science, Technology, and Society: A Historical and Reflexive Approach.” Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society 1(1): 17–37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2017.1368622.

Larivière, Vincent, Stefanie Haustein, and Philippe Mongeon. 2015. “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era.” PLOS ONE 10(6): 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.

Law, John, and Wen-Yuan Lin. 2017. “Provincializing STS: Postcoloniality, Symmetry, and Method.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 11(2): 211–227.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3823859.

Law, John, and Annemarie Mol. 2020. “Words to Think with: An Introduction.” The Sociological Review 68(2): 263–282.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120905452.

Leydesdorff, Loet. 1989. “The Relations between Qualitative Theory and Scientometric Methods in Science and Technology Studies: Introduction to the Topical Issue.” Scientometrics 15(5–6): 333–347.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017058.

Martin, Ben R. 2016. “Twenty Challenges for Innovation Studies.” Science and Public Policy 43(3): 432–450.
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv077.

Martin, Ben R., Paul Nightingale, and Alfredo Yegros-Yegros. 2012. “Science and Technology Studies: Exploring the Knowledge Base.” Research Policy 41(7): 1182–1204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.010.

Ortiz, Renato. 2004. “As Ciências Sociais e o Inglês.” [Social Sciences and the English Language] Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 19(54): 6–22.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-69092004000100001.

Phillipson, Robert. 2012. “English: From British Empire to Corporate Empire.” Sociolinguistic Studies 5(3): 441–464.
https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v5i3.441.

Sábato, Jorge, and Natalio Botana. 1968. “La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América Latina.” [Science and Technology in the Future of Latin America] Revista de la Integración, INTAL 1(3): 15–36.

Saldaña, Juan J., ed. 1996. Historia social de las ciencias en América Latina. [Social History of the Sciences in Latin America] First Edition. Problemas Educativos de México. Universidad Nacional de México, Coordinación de Humanidades and Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Coordinación de la Investigación Científica. México, DF: M.A. Porrúa.
https://wellcomecollection.org/works/gnyxyckg.

Şengör, Ali M. C. 2014. “How Scientometry Is Killing Science.” GSA (Geological Society of America) Today 24(12): 44–45.
https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG226GW.1.

Soete, Luc. 2019. “Science, Technology and Innovation Studies at a Crossroad: SPRU as Case Study.” Research Policy 48(4): 849–857.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.029.

Sugimoto, Cassidy R., and Vincent Larivière. 2018. Measuring Research: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thelwall, Mike, Kayvan Kousha, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, et al. 2015. “The Metric Tide: Literature Review.” Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5066.3520.

Tollefson, Jeff. 2018. “China Declared World’s Largest Producer of Scientific Articles.” Nature 553(7689): 390.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-00927-4.

van den Besselaar, Peter. 2000. “Communication between Science and Technology Studies Journals: A Case Study in Differentiation and Integration in Scientific Fields.” Scientometrics 47(2): 169–193.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005686123917.

⸻. 2001. “The Cognitive and the Social Structure of STS.” Scientometrics 51(2): 441–460.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012714020453.

Velho, Léa. 2011. “Conceitos de ciência e a política científica, tecnológica e de inovação.” [The Concept of Science, and the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy] Sociologias 13(26): 128–153.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-45222011000100006.

Vessuri, Hebe. 2011. “La Actual Internacionalización de las Ciencias Sociales en América Latina, ¿Vino Viejo en Barricas Nuevas?” [The Current Internationalization of Social Sciences in Latin America: Old Wine in New Winesinks?] In Estudio social de la ciencia y la tecnología desde América Latina, edited by Antonio A. Hernández and Pablo Kreimer, First Edition, 12–36. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bs5p0.

⸻. 2013. “El nuevo ‘mantra’ de la diplomacia científica internacional: ¿Co-diseño de conocimiento? ¿Investigación integrativa?” [The New Mantra of International Science Diplomacy: Co-design of Knowledge? Integrative Research?] Universitas Humanística 76: 25–50.

Williams, Robin. 2019. “Why Science and Innovation Policy Needs Science and Technology Studies?” In Handbook on Science and Public Policy, edited by Dagmar Simon, Stefan Kuhlmann, Julia Stamm, and Weert Canzler, 503-522. Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784715946.00038.

Wyatt, Sally, Staša Milojević, Han W. Park, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2017. “Intellectual and Practical Contributions of Scientometrics to STS.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, Fourth Edition, 87–112. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Notes

1. Of course, we are aware that the “peripheral context” is far from being a homogeneous space. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the more important features regarding scientific publication are shared by several non-hegemonic regions. ↑

2. Those common eight journals are Technology and Culture; Minerva; Research Policy; Social Studies of Science; Science, Technology and Human Values, Scientometrics; Research Evaluation; and Public Understanding of Science. ↑

3. Those are, in order of citation: Social Studies of Science; Scientometrics; Science, Technology, and Human Values; Research Policy; Technology and Culture; and Minerva (Martin et al. 2012, 1189). ↑

4. All journals in the sample are also indexed in Scopus. Web of Science was preferred since it retrieved more complete information regarding authors and institutions with the software used. Note that there are no biases related to the publication database used since the journals were selected a priori. ↑

5. See https://data.worldbank.org/country. Accessed March 3, 2021. ↑

6. The percentage of articles in journals on S&T policy/innovation and scientometrics is the following: Southern Africa, 87%; Iran, 98%; Israel 74%; Pakistan, 97%; Turkey, 97%; Malaysia, 92%; Singapore, 58%; Russia, 87% and New Zealand, 54%. ↑

7. It could be argued that this fact is not exclusive of STS, but common to other fields belonging to social sciences. However, while there is a general agreement that social processes are usually specific of a given context, science tends to be seen as a “universal” research object. ↑

Copyright, Citation, Contact

Copyright © 2022. (Noela Invernizzi, Davyt Amilcar, Leandro Rodríguez Medina, and Pablo Kreimer). Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Available at estsjournal.org.

To cite this article: Invernizzi, Noela, Davyt Amilcar, Leandro Rodríguez Medina, and Pablo Kreimer. 2022. “STS Between Centers and Peripheries: How Transnational are Leading STS Journals?” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 8(3): 31–62. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.1005.

To email contact Noela Invernizzi: noela.invernizzi@gmail.com.