Global number of publications over time












26















We always hear about the increasing number of publications published every year and the resulting information overload in science. I wanted to show this trend to students to highlight why they should care about information literacy and search strategies. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a reliable source that highlights this trend, e.g. in an easy understandable figure.



I searched for publications including this information and even hoped for Web of Science or Google Scholar to publish this information but couldn't find anything useful. It is not that important what kinds of publication types are included, e.g. only journal articles or all kinds of publications.



Has anyone a reliable and relatively easy to understand source highlighting the trend of increasing global number of publications over time?










share|improve this question

























  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    yesterday











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday











  • Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

    – Jasper
    yesterday
















26















We always hear about the increasing number of publications published every year and the resulting information overload in science. I wanted to show this trend to students to highlight why they should care about information literacy and search strategies. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a reliable source that highlights this trend, e.g. in an easy understandable figure.



I searched for publications including this information and even hoped for Web of Science or Google Scholar to publish this information but couldn't find anything useful. It is not that important what kinds of publication types are included, e.g. only journal articles or all kinds of publications.



Has anyone a reliable and relatively easy to understand source highlighting the trend of increasing global number of publications over time?










share|improve this question

























  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    yesterday











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday











  • Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

    – Jasper
    yesterday














26












26








26


6






We always hear about the increasing number of publications published every year and the resulting information overload in science. I wanted to show this trend to students to highlight why they should care about information literacy and search strategies. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a reliable source that highlights this trend, e.g. in an easy understandable figure.



I searched for publications including this information and even hoped for Web of Science or Google Scholar to publish this information but couldn't find anything useful. It is not that important what kinds of publication types are included, e.g. only journal articles or all kinds of publications.



Has anyone a reliable and relatively easy to understand source highlighting the trend of increasing global number of publications over time?










share|improve this question
















We always hear about the increasing number of publications published every year and the resulting information overload in science. I wanted to show this trend to students to highlight why they should care about information literacy and search strategies. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a reliable source that highlights this trend, e.g. in an easy understandable figure.



I searched for publications including this information and even hoped for Web of Science or Google Scholar to publish this information but couldn't find anything useful. It is not that important what kinds of publication types are included, e.g. only journal articles or all kinds of publications.



Has anyone a reliable and relatively easy to understand source highlighting the trend of increasing global number of publications over time?







publications reference-request






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









JJJ

1605




1605










asked yesterday









FuzzyLeapfrogFuzzyLeapfrog

3,96711141




3,96711141













  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    yesterday











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday











  • Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

    – Jasper
    yesterday



















  • Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

    – Solar Mike
    yesterday











  • The underlying reasons may be related.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday











  • Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

    – Jasper
    yesterday

















Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

– Solar Mike
yesterday





Is that trend the same as the increase in degrees given out compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

– Solar Mike
yesterday













The underlying reasons may be related.

– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday





The underlying reasons may be related.

– FuzzyLeapfrog
yesterday













Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

– Jasper
yesterday





Microsoft's Academic search team presented such a chart at the 2016 Microsoft Academic Summit in New York. My recollection is that the overall trend was about 7 percent per year growth in citations, going back to the nineteenth century. The trend was steady, with three exceptions: Major drops during the World Wars, and lack of growth during the Great Depression. If anything, the growth rate was higher in recent decades. I helped prepare the results, but I do not have a copy.

– Jasper
yesterday










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















20














I found an archived version of the 2018 MTS Report. Among other statistics, it has this plot of the scientific output from 1975-2018 and four different databases:



2018 MTS Report



The Web of Science (WoS) line looks rather similar to the earlier results of Bornmann and Mutz (2014), who produced this figure for 1980-2012 using a copy of WoS' database:



Exponential growth






share|improve this answer


























  • Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday











  • @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

    – Anyon
    yesterday











  • I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday






  • 1





    Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

    – henning
    yesterday











  • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday



















12














arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



enter image description here



This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



Long-term chart:



enter image description here



Very long-term chart:



enter image description here



There is also biorxiv covering the missing biomedical scientific branches, much younger than arxiv but there is a quite detailed statistical report on its growth.



Publication: Attention decay in science (due to exponential growth)



(To me it's also interesting how this correlates with the number of PhD students in another answer and how this can be explained... did internet boost scientific productivity and/or number of PhD students?!)






share|improve this answer





















  • 7





    Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

    – Anyon
    yesterday











  • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

    – Michael Schmidt
    yesterday











  • That's not exponential growth, though...

    – nabla
    yesterday











  • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

    – Michael Schmidt
    yesterday













  • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

    – nabla
    yesterday



















7














For the field of mathematics, another source of data is the AMS Math Reviews (MathSciNet), where this type of information is readily available (just search for the year you want). Virtually every reputable math publication gets indexed there nowadays. Also, unlike something like Google Scholar, only reputable journals get indexed and each publication appears only once. Math Reviews is a paid service, so you'd need to be affiliated with a university with a subscription. (I don't know how complete this data is as you go further back in time. Maybe someone else has a better sense of this.)



For example, here are the total number of mathematics publications for various years at 10-year intervals.



2018: 111,018;
2008: 99,268;
1998: 67,807;
1988: 55,420;
1978: 36,637;
1968: 19,615;
1958: 10,249;
1948: 5,456;
1938: 1,417;
1928: 1,439;
1918: 632;
1908: 729;
1898: 710;
1888: 266;
1878: 181






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "415"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126980%2fglobal-number-of-publications-over-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    20














    I found an archived version of the 2018 MTS Report. Among other statistics, it has this plot of the scientific output from 1975-2018 and four different databases:



    2018 MTS Report



    The Web of Science (WoS) line looks rather similar to the earlier results of Bornmann and Mutz (2014), who produced this figure for 1980-2012 using a copy of WoS' database:



    Exponential growth






    share|improve this answer


























    • Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday











    • @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

      – Anyon
      yesterday











    • I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday






    • 1





      Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

      – henning
      yesterday











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday
















    20














    I found an archived version of the 2018 MTS Report. Among other statistics, it has this plot of the scientific output from 1975-2018 and four different databases:



    2018 MTS Report



    The Web of Science (WoS) line looks rather similar to the earlier results of Bornmann and Mutz (2014), who produced this figure for 1980-2012 using a copy of WoS' database:



    Exponential growth






    share|improve this answer


























    • Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday











    • @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

      – Anyon
      yesterday











    • I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday






    • 1





      Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

      – henning
      yesterday











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday














    20












    20








    20







    I found an archived version of the 2018 MTS Report. Among other statistics, it has this plot of the scientific output from 1975-2018 and four different databases:



    2018 MTS Report



    The Web of Science (WoS) line looks rather similar to the earlier results of Bornmann and Mutz (2014), who produced this figure for 1980-2012 using a copy of WoS' database:



    Exponential growth






    share|improve this answer















    I found an archived version of the 2018 MTS Report. Among other statistics, it has this plot of the scientific output from 1975-2018 and four different databases:



    2018 MTS Report



    The Web of Science (WoS) line looks rather similar to the earlier results of Bornmann and Mutz (2014), who produced this figure for 1980-2012 using a copy of WoS' database:



    Exponential growth







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday

























    answered yesterday









    AnyonAnyon

    8,43123345




    8,43123345













    • Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday











    • @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

      – Anyon
      yesterday











    • I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday






    • 1





      Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

      – henning
      yesterday











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday



















    • Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday











    • @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

      – Anyon
      yesterday











    • I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday






    • 1





      Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

      – henning
      yesterday











    • Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

      – FuzzyLeapfrog
      yesterday

















    Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday





    Thank you, this is a good starting point. Yes, it would be great to have more up-to-date numbers. According to this blogpost we already hit the 2.5 million publications per year in 2015 but the cited STM report from 2015 is no longer available online. Could be up to 3 million per year now ...

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday













    @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

    – Anyon
    yesterday





    @FuzzyLeapfrog I couldn't access the STM reports (2015 or 2018) either. There's a NSF report reporting 2,290,294 publications for 2014 though.

    – Anyon
    yesterday













    I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday





    I'll include this figure in my lecture slides untill I'll stumble over a more up-to-date source. Maybe the STM documents will be availble again sometime.

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday




    1




    1





    Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

    – henning
    yesterday





    Nice answer. The figures are less impressive when related to population growth (although I'm not sure how relevant this is, given that most population growth happens in the poor countries that don't produce much research).

    – henning
    yesterday













    Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday





    Webarchive is the best. Thank you for the update!

    – FuzzyLeapfrog
    yesterday











    12














    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    There is also biorxiv covering the missing biomedical scientific branches, much younger than arxiv but there is a quite detailed statistical report on its growth.



    Publication: Attention decay in science (due to exponential growth)



    (To me it's also interesting how this correlates with the number of PhD students in another answer and how this can be explained... did internet boost scientific productivity and/or number of PhD students?!)






    share|improve this answer





















    • 7





      Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

      – Anyon
      yesterday











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – Michael Schmidt
      yesterday











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      yesterday











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – Michael Schmidt
      yesterday













    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      yesterday
















    12














    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    There is also biorxiv covering the missing biomedical scientific branches, much younger than arxiv but there is a quite detailed statistical report on its growth.



    Publication: Attention decay in science (due to exponential growth)



    (To me it's also interesting how this correlates with the number of PhD students in another answer and how this can be explained... did internet boost scientific productivity and/or number of PhD students?!)






    share|improve this answer





















    • 7





      Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

      – Anyon
      yesterday











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – Michael Schmidt
      yesterday











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      yesterday











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – Michael Schmidt
      yesterday













    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      yesterday














    12












    12








    12







    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    There is also biorxiv covering the missing biomedical scientific branches, much younger than arxiv but there is a quite detailed statistical report on its growth.



    Publication: Attention decay in science (due to exponential growth)



    (To me it's also interesting how this correlates with the number of PhD students in another answer and how this can be explained... did internet boost scientific productivity and/or number of PhD students?!)






    share|improve this answer















    arxiv.org presents his own statistics, but be aware that a lot of publications from humanities and biomedical sciences are missing in this statistics:



    enter image description here



    This chart also shows the exponential trend on arxiv.



    Long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    Very long-term chart:



    enter image description here



    There is also biorxiv covering the missing biomedical scientific branches, much younger than arxiv but there is a quite detailed statistical report on its growth.



    Publication: Attention decay in science (due to exponential growth)



    (To me it's also interesting how this correlates with the number of PhD students in another answer and how this can be explained... did internet boost scientific productivity and/or number of PhD students?!)







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday

























    answered yesterday









    Michael SchmidtMichael Schmidt

    819312




    819312








    • 7





      Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

      – Anyon
      yesterday











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – Michael Schmidt
      yesterday











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      yesterday











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – Michael Schmidt
      yesterday













    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      yesterday














    • 7





      Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

      – Anyon
      yesterday











    • @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

      – Michael Schmidt
      yesterday











    • That's not exponential growth, though...

      – nabla
      yesterday











    • @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

      – Michael Schmidt
      yesterday













    • Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

      – nabla
      yesterday








    7




    7





    Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

    – Anyon
    yesterday





    Note that arXiv has progressively expanded its scope, so the growth in the linked chart will partly reflect that, as well as changing attitudes to preprints in some subfields.

    – Anyon
    yesterday













    @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

    – Michael Schmidt
    yesterday





    @Anyon thanks, I added biorxiv, was not aware of this clone for biomedical sciences

    – Michael Schmidt
    yesterday













    That's not exponential growth, though...

    – nabla
    yesterday





    That's not exponential growth, though...

    – nabla
    yesterday













    @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

    – Michael Schmidt
    yesterday







    @nabla the "attention decay in science" paper has some exponential fits in it and the long-term charts show the trend better

    – Michael Schmidt
    yesterday















    Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

    – nabla
    yesterday





    Sure, but the curves shown before the edit were not examples of exponential growth.

    – nabla
    yesterday











    7














    For the field of mathematics, another source of data is the AMS Math Reviews (MathSciNet), where this type of information is readily available (just search for the year you want). Virtually every reputable math publication gets indexed there nowadays. Also, unlike something like Google Scholar, only reputable journals get indexed and each publication appears only once. Math Reviews is a paid service, so you'd need to be affiliated with a university with a subscription. (I don't know how complete this data is as you go further back in time. Maybe someone else has a better sense of this.)



    For example, here are the total number of mathematics publications for various years at 10-year intervals.



    2018: 111,018;
    2008: 99,268;
    1998: 67,807;
    1988: 55,420;
    1978: 36,637;
    1968: 19,615;
    1958: 10,249;
    1948: 5,456;
    1938: 1,417;
    1928: 1,439;
    1918: 632;
    1908: 729;
    1898: 710;
    1888: 266;
    1878: 181






    share|improve this answer




























      7














      For the field of mathematics, another source of data is the AMS Math Reviews (MathSciNet), where this type of information is readily available (just search for the year you want). Virtually every reputable math publication gets indexed there nowadays. Also, unlike something like Google Scholar, only reputable journals get indexed and each publication appears only once. Math Reviews is a paid service, so you'd need to be affiliated with a university with a subscription. (I don't know how complete this data is as you go further back in time. Maybe someone else has a better sense of this.)



      For example, here are the total number of mathematics publications for various years at 10-year intervals.



      2018: 111,018;
      2008: 99,268;
      1998: 67,807;
      1988: 55,420;
      1978: 36,637;
      1968: 19,615;
      1958: 10,249;
      1948: 5,456;
      1938: 1,417;
      1928: 1,439;
      1918: 632;
      1908: 729;
      1898: 710;
      1888: 266;
      1878: 181






      share|improve this answer


























        7












        7








        7







        For the field of mathematics, another source of data is the AMS Math Reviews (MathSciNet), where this type of information is readily available (just search for the year you want). Virtually every reputable math publication gets indexed there nowadays. Also, unlike something like Google Scholar, only reputable journals get indexed and each publication appears only once. Math Reviews is a paid service, so you'd need to be affiliated with a university with a subscription. (I don't know how complete this data is as you go further back in time. Maybe someone else has a better sense of this.)



        For example, here are the total number of mathematics publications for various years at 10-year intervals.



        2018: 111,018;
        2008: 99,268;
        1998: 67,807;
        1988: 55,420;
        1978: 36,637;
        1968: 19,615;
        1958: 10,249;
        1948: 5,456;
        1938: 1,417;
        1928: 1,439;
        1918: 632;
        1908: 729;
        1898: 710;
        1888: 266;
        1878: 181






        share|improve this answer













        For the field of mathematics, another source of data is the AMS Math Reviews (MathSciNet), where this type of information is readily available (just search for the year you want). Virtually every reputable math publication gets indexed there nowadays. Also, unlike something like Google Scholar, only reputable journals get indexed and each publication appears only once. Math Reviews is a paid service, so you'd need to be affiliated with a university with a subscription. (I don't know how complete this data is as you go further back in time. Maybe someone else has a better sense of this.)



        For example, here are the total number of mathematics publications for various years at 10-year intervals.



        2018: 111,018;
        2008: 99,268;
        1998: 67,807;
        1988: 55,420;
        1978: 36,637;
        1968: 19,615;
        1958: 10,249;
        1948: 5,456;
        1938: 1,417;
        1928: 1,439;
        1918: 632;
        1908: 729;
        1898: 710;
        1888: 266;
        1878: 181







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        mdrmdr

        1263




        1263






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126980%2fglobal-number-of-publications-over-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

            Masuk log Menu navigasi

            อาณาจักร (ชีววิทยา) ดูเพิ่ม อ้างอิง รายการเลือกการนำทาง10.1086/39456810.5962/bhl.title.447410.1126/science.163.3863.150576276010.1007/BF01796092408502"Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms"10.1073/pnas.74.11.5088432104270744"Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya"1990PNAS...87.4576W10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576541592112744PubMedJump the queueexpand by handPubMedJump the queueexpand by handPubMedJump the queueexpand by hand"A revised six-kingdom system of life"10.1111/j.1469-185X.1998.tb00030.x9809012"Only six kingdoms of life"10.1098/rspb.2004.2705169172415306349"Kingdoms Protozoa and Chromista and the eozoan root of the eukaryotic tree"10.1098/rsbl.2009.0948288006020031978เพิ่มข้อมูล