**5. Adding numbers to hierarchy**

The central hegemony, the precedence on the agendas proposition and the hierarchy are processes well known in the specialized literature end it seems to continue producing a differentiation between central and peripheral countries on the ISST, and it is assumed the risk of the distance of this positions to increase, and a factor that can explain this increase is the technology sophistication from the experience, for example, vide the LHC case – which cost 3 billion of Euro. Nevertheless, in the past few years, the data concerning publications demonstrates a different scenario that may be indicating major shifts.

<sup>3</sup> Concerning the most known case among us: "the biotechnologic war" in the 90 and 00 decades, which occur in politics, science and other society dimensions (vide Premebida, 2011)

<sup>4</sup> Vide, for exemple, Merton (1957).

<sup>5</sup> The funds were created in 1999 by the studying and Project financing named FINEP and it is related as subventions to biotechnology, spatial research, and energy among others.

<sup>6</sup> It gives place to many speculations, for example, to what Victoria and Moreira (2006) named "editorial racism", that is to say, the prejudice from the editors from international magazines against authors from the south hemisphere.

Climate Change and Shifting Technoscientific Agendas 311

center and periphery in ISST? What it is valid to affirm is that the hierarchy has carried few changes, even though some positions had changed. The United States still concentrate about 30% of the scientific and technologic worldwide production, reproducing, this way, its

*Source: Leite et all. (2011). Legend: N = 31,073 (1997–2000) and 33,006 (2001–2004). Only researchers with three or more publications between 1997 and 2004 were considered. Agr Agriculture, Bio Biology, Eng Engineering, Earth Earth and Exact Sciences, Hum Humanities, L&A Linguistics and Arts, Health Health* 

Fig. 1. Distribution of Brazilian researchers among different groups of IPR and the effect of

However, there is something peculiar in the position taken by Brazil in recent decades in ISST when observing large areas of knowledge or paradigmatic standards of publication.

The Brazilian pattern, as can be seen in the table below (Table 2), fits in Section III, the

bioambiental model form the concentration of scientific and technological activity.

"I. the 'western model' with clinical medicine and biomedical research as dominating fields, II. the characteristic pattern of the former socialist countries with excessive activity in chemistry and physics, III. the 'bio-environmental model' with biology and earth and space sciences in the main focus IV. the 'Japanese model' with engineering

According Glanzel et al. (2006, p. 75) these patterns can be divided into four:

calculus centers, reinforcing its hegemony in ISST.

*Sciences, Soc Social Sciences.* 

elds in 1997–2000 and 2001–2004.

**6. A new tropical scientific agenda** 

and chemistry being predominant."

Considering the case of Brazil. Brazil has raised significantly its scientific production, and it is possible to note this raise considering the international publication ranking. If we take this criterion, in the period of 1991 to 2003, the country has doubled its participation in the global scientific production when compared to the former period, the increase was form 0.71% to 1.45% as the following table shows.


*Source: study by Glänzel et al (2006) based on the bibliographic data extracted from the 1991–2003 annual updates of the Web of Science (WoS) of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI – Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA, USA)* 

Table 1. Scientific output, ranking and world share in publications of the top 5 countries, the top 10 countries with less than 2% in the world and Latin American countries

In recent article that seeks to measure the internationalization of Brazilian science in two different periods (1997 to 2000 and 2001 to 2004) Leite *et all*. (2001) affirm that "Comparing the two periods, the results also show that the proportion of researchers with highly international prole is increasing over time whereas the proportion of those with highly national prole is being reduced". In the same article, the authors observe that some areas are in greater evidence then the others in this growing process of internationalization. Considering it, "Earth and Exact Sciences, Biology and Engineering are the field with highest international publication prole, with more than 50% of researchers presenting an IPR7 at least intermediary". The disciplinary field which gain more evidence in this stage of scientific Brazilian production are related in the table below

The current data confirm the raise and the impact of Brazilian science. In 2010, according to The SCImago Journal & Country Rank8, Brazil assumed the 13th position in the ranking considering the impact of its journals present in the data basis Scopus. The same way, the raking from ISI/Thomsom Reuters, presents Brazil as one of the most advance concerning scientific international publications (KING, 2009). But what does it mean to the relation

<sup>7</sup> IPR (International Publication Ratio) is na indicator created by the authors to measure the size of the Brazilian production.

<sup>8</sup> The SCImago Journal & Country Rank (http://www.scimagojr.com) is a portal that includes the journals and country scientific indicators developed from the information contained in the Scopus® database (Elsevier B.V.).

Considering the case of Brazil. Brazil has raised significantly its scientific production, and it is possible to note this raise considering the international publication ranking. If we take this criterion, in the period of 1991 to 2003, the country has doubled its participation in the global scientific production when compared to the former period, the increase was form

*Source: study by Glänzel et al (2006) based on the bibliographic data extracted from the 1991–2003 annual updates of the Web of Science (WoS) of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI – Thomson Scientific,* 

top 10 countries with less than 2% in the world and Latin American countries

scientific Brazilian production are related in the table below

Table 1. Scientific output, ranking and world share in publications of the top 5 countries, the

In recent article that seeks to measure the internationalization of Brazilian science in two different periods (1997 to 2000 and 2001 to 2004) Leite *et all*. (2001) affirm that "Comparing the two periods, the results also show that the proportion of researchers with highly international prole is increasing over time whereas the proportion of those with highly national prole is being reduced". In the same article, the authors observe that some areas are in greater evidence then the others in this growing process of internationalization. Considering it, "Earth and Exact Sciences, Biology and Engineering are the field with highest international publication prole, with more than 50% of researchers presenting an IPR7 at least intermediary". The disciplinary field which gain more evidence in this stage of

The current data confirm the raise and the impact of Brazilian science. In 2010, according to The SCImago Journal & Country Rank8, Brazil assumed the 13th position in the ranking considering the impact of its journals present in the data basis Scopus. The same way, the raking from ISI/Thomsom Reuters, presents Brazil as one of the most advance concerning scientific international publications (KING, 2009). But what does it mean to the relation

IPR (International Publication Ratio) is na indicator created by the authors to measure the size of the

 The SCImago Journal & Country Rank (http://www.scimagojr.com) is a portal that includes the journals and country scientific indicators developed from the information contained in the Scopus®

0.71% to 1.45% as the following table shows.

*Philadelphia, PA, USA)* 

 7

8

Brazilian production.

database (Elsevier B.V.).

center and periphery in ISST? What it is valid to affirm is that the hierarchy has carried few changes, even though some positions had changed. The United States still concentrate about 30% of the scientific and technologic worldwide production, reproducing, this way, its calculus centers, reinforcing its hegemony in ISST.

*Source: Leite et all. (2011). Legend: N = 31,073 (1997–2000) and 33,006 (2001–2004). Only researchers with three or more publications between 1997 and 2004 were considered. Agr Agriculture, Bio Biology, Eng Engineering, Earth Earth and Exact Sciences, Hum Humanities, L&A Linguistics and Arts, Health Health Sciences, Soc Social Sciences.* 

Fig. 1. Distribution of Brazilian researchers among different groups of IPR and the effect of elds in 1997–2000 and 2001–2004.
