Document Type : Articles


1 National Research Institute for Science Policy

2 Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (Iran Doc)


Scientific progress has been one of the critical concerns of many nations in recent decades. It has become one of the top priorities at the highest policy-making levels in several countries. During the last two decades, several policies have been developed to achieve scientific progress and leadership in different parts of the world. For example, China, Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have designed their policies to accelerate scientific progress and achieve scientific leadership in a specific region. However, there is no comprehensive framework to measure the extent of scientific leadership in theory or practice. This study proposes a multidimensional framework for measuring scientific leadership in countries through a qualitative approach. To address this objective, key dimensions, indicators, and metrics for measuring scientific leadership were identified in the literature and policy documents. After the identification of these dimensions, indicators, and metrics, they were verified and weighted by different expert panels. According to the findings, a comprehensive framework for measuring scientific leadership includes five dimensions and 22 indicators and metrics. Results showed that “institutions” is more important than other dimensions in the framework. Since the nature of “scientific leadership” concept is more political than scientific, considering dimensions and indicators covered by the media is a more effective way to measure it. The findings of this study can give policymakers a more comprehensive and accurate view of the concept of scientific leadership and assist them in various planning and research policies. In addition, the proposed framework is the basis for future research seeking to assess scientific leadership quantitatively.


  1. • Abramo, G., Andrea D'Angelo, C., & Di Costa, F. (2009). Mapping excellence in national research systems: the case of Italy. Evaluation Review, 33(2): 159-188.
  2. • Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and evaluation in counseling and development, 47(1), 79-86.
  3. • Basu, A, Foland, P, Holdridge, G, & Shelton, R. D. (2018). China’s rising leadership in science and technology: Quantitative and qualitative indicators. Scientometrics, 117(1): 249-269.
  4. • Bornmann, L., Wagner, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). BRICS countries and scientific excellence: A bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1507-1513.
  5. • Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2009, October). Dynamic Studies of the Scientific Strengths of Nations Using a Highly Detailed Model of Science. Georgia Institute of Technology.
  6. • Cavacini, A. (2016). Recent trends in Middle Eastern scientific production. Scientometrics, 109(1), 423-432.
  7. • Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (2000). Experiments in International Benchmarking of U.S. Research Fields. US: National Academies Press.
  8. • Fazeli-Varzaneh, M., Ghaderi-Azad, E., & Elango, B. (2020). Middle East Countries’ Contribution to Global Engineering Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM), 19(1), 1-13.
  9. • Feng, X., & Chapman, K. (2020). ‘The tiger’s leap’: The role of history in legitimating the authority of modern Chinese planners. Urban Studies, 57(13), 2681-2696.
  10. • Fewsmith, J. (2004). Promoting the scientific development concept. China Leadership Monitor, 11(30), 1-10.
  11. • Gul, S., Nisa, N. T., Shah, T. A., Gupta, S., Jan, A., & Ahmad, S. (2015). Middle East: research productivity and performance across nations. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1157-1166.
  12. • Haq, I. U., & Tanveer, M. (2020). Status of Research Productivity and Higher Education in the Members of Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 1522-0222.
  13. • Hardeman, S., Van Roy, V., Vertesy, D., & Saisana, M. (2013). An analysis of national research systems (I): A Composite Indicator for Scientific and Technological Research Excellence. Luxembourg: JRC Scientific and Policy Reports.
  14. • Hertig, Hans Peter (2016). Universities, Rankings, and the Dynamics of Global Higher Education Perspectives from Asia, Europe, and North America. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  15. • Johnson, B. B., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2020). Americans’ views of scientists’ motivations for scientific work. Public Understanding of Science, 29(1), 2-20.
  16. • Khoubnasabjafari, M., Sadeghifar, E., Khalili, M., Ansarin, K., & Jouyban, A. (2012). Research performances of Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) members. BioImpacts: BI, 2(2), 111.
  17. • Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2008). Thought leadership: A new indicator for national and institutional comparison. Scientometrics, 75(2): 239-250.
  18. • Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2014). The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 606-617.
  19. • Li, C., Zhang, E., & Liu, J. (2020). Analysis of Countries’ Scientific Capability in Dual Scientific Roles. IEEE Access, 8, 14545-14556.
  20. • Moed, H. F. (2016). Iran’s scientific dominance and the emergence of South-East Asian countries as scientific collaborators in the Persian Gulf Region. Scientometrics, 108(1), 305-314.
  21. • Nabavi, M., & Rasuli, B. (2021). Toward Scientific Leadership: Definitions and Requirements. International Conference on the Statement of the Second step of the Iranian Revolution and the Muslim World. March 08, 2021, Tehran, Iran.
  22. • Norouzi Chakli A, Hassanzadeh M, Noormohammadi H. (2009). Based on his knowledge of Iran in the World (2007-1993) In: Tehran, editor. Tehran: The National Research Institute for Science Policy of Iran.
  23. • OST- Science and Technology Observatory (2019). Dynamics of scientific production in the world, in Europe and in France, 2000-2016. Paris: Hceres.
  24. • RD, S., & Foland, P. (2010). The race for world leadership of science and technology: status and forecasts. Science focus, 5(1), 1-9.
  25. • Satyendra C Pandey & Pinaki Nandan Pattnaik, (2015). University Research Ecosystem: A Conceptual Understanding. Review of Economic and Business Studies, 8(1), 169-181. DOI: 10.1515/rebs-2016-0021.
  26. • Şener, S., & Sarıdoğan, E. (2011). The effects of science-technology-innovation on competitiveness and economic growth. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 815-828.
  27. • Shashnov, S., & Kotsemir, M. (2018). Research landscape of the BRICS countries: current trends in research output, thematic structures of publications, and the relative influence of partners. Scientometrics, 117(2), 1115-1155.
  28. • Shi G.J. and Gong Y. (2012). Science is horizontal: A new explanation of the Yuasa phenomenon. Studies in Science of Science, 30(12): 11–22.
  29. • Siddiqi, A., Stoppani, J., Anadon, L. D., & Narayanamurti, V. (2016). Scientific wealth in Middle East and North Africa: Productivity, indigeneity, and specialty in 1981–2013. PloS one, 11(11), e0164500.
  30. • Simoes, N. and Crespo, N. (2020). On the measurement of scientific leadership. Journal of Information Science, (OnlineFirst), 1-8. DOI: 10.1177/0165551520950240.
  31. • Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Bantam books.
  32. • Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T., Baas, J., & Jonkers, K. (2018). Openness and impact of leading scientific countries. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3, 10.
  33. • Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research policy, 35(1), 83-104.