A research in Agriculture and Climate Change in India with International Collaboration: A Scientometrics Perspective  

Introduction

The scientometrics study of research has become one of the most widely used techniques for evaluating the performance of individual researchers, departments, institutions, countries, subject domains, and journals. The purpose of this study is to provide a scientometrics evaluation of global research performance on climate change and its impact on agriculture during the period 1995–2025. Such an analysis will help scientists and policymakers understand the progress and trends in research and development within this field. By mapping publication patterns, collaboration networks and citation impact, the study offers valuable insights for guiding future research priorities in climate change and agriculture.

Agriculture is a critical sector for global food security, rural livelihoods, and economic stability, particularly in developing nations. However, the sector faces unprecedented challenges due to the adverse impacts of climate change, including temperature fluctuations, erratic rainfall patterns, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and shifting pest and disease dynamics. These challenges threaten not only crop productivity but also the sustainability of natural resources and the resilience of farming systems.

In recent times, research relating agriculture and climate change has extendedquickly, driven by the urgency to develop adaptive policies, improve resource efficiency, and enhance climate resilience. Given the multidisciplinary nature of this field-spanning agronomy, environmental science, policy studies, and socio-economic research-collaboration across national boundaries has become essential for knowledge sharing, technology transfer, and policy innovation.

Scientometrics analysis offers a systematic approach to evaluate the patterns, trends, and impact of research outputs in a given domain. By examining publication records, citation metrics, collaboration networks, and keyword occurrences, it becomes possible to map the intellectual structure and identify research hotspots. Such analyses not only highlight the contributions of leading countries, institutions, and researchers but also reveal the extent of international cooperation in addressing complex global challenges.

The present study employs scientometric techniques to analyse research publications on agriculture and climate change in India, with a special focus on international collaboration patterns. Based on a dataset comprising 2,460 publications and 3,19,979 citations, the study identifies key collaborating countries, highly cited papers, and thematic research trends. The findings aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the global research landscape in this domain, thereby guiding policymakers and researchers toward more targeted and impactful comparisons.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to analyze the research performance in the field of “Agriculture and Climate Change in India” as reflected in the publication and citation output during 1995-2025. In particular, the study focuses on the following aspects:

1. To study the share of publications of highly productive countries;
   1. To study the Total Local publications citations;
   1. To study the Total Global publications citations Score;
   1. To study the hot and highly cited publications;

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Web of Science database was used for collecting data on climate change by using the search term “Agriculture and climate change” with title field and “India” with address field. Records relating to climate changes were retrieved2,460 papers for the period of 1995-2025 andit wasdeveloped only the papers which has contributed only by India.

A total of 2,460 publications registered 38,345 Citations were transferred to Biblioshiny, VoSViewer and Histcite for tabulation and visualization of Concept Mappingand the data were analyzed as per the objectives of the study.

Data analysis and interpretation

The comparative analysis of Total Global Citation Scores (TGCS)and Total LocalCitation Scores (TLCS) reveals important patterns in the scholarly impact and collaborative footprint of different countries in agriculture and climate change research.

The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia consistently occupy the top positions in both TGCS and TLCS, reflecting not only high productivity but also significant scholarly influence at both the global and local (dataset) levels.

The USA leads with 354 publications, 26,538 TGCS, and 436 TLCS, highlighting its central role in shaping the research landscape.

The UK ranks second in both metrics (156 publications; 17,027 TGCS; 375 TLCS), while Australia demonstrates strong visibility (147; 15,148 TGCS; 194 TLCS).

Some nations achieve disproportionately high TLCS compared to their TGCS, indicating strong influence within the core dataset despite smaller global citation counts.

Mexico (73 publications; 7,549 TGCS; 299 TLCS) stands out for its exceptionally high TLCS-to-TGCS ratio, suggesting that its research is deeply embedded and frequently referenced within the main network of studies.

Kenya (51; 5,590 TGCS; 137 TLCS) also shows a strong local research influence, particularly relevant to climate-vulnerable agricultural regions.

Some countries have high TGCS but relatively lower TLCS, suggesting broader international visibility rather than dominance in the local dataset.

Germany (125; 11,668 TGCS; 156 TLCS) and China (129; 11,451 TGCS; 140 TLCS) both fit this pattern, with extensive international citations yet moderate internal network citations.

Japan (47; 3,419 TGCS; 9 TLCS) exemplifies a large gap, indicating that its work is more recognized globally than within the dataset’s main citation clusters.

Several developing nations contribute significant volumes of research, with varying degrees of citation influence.

Bangladesh (78; 2,576 TGCS; 93 TLCS) and Philippines (23; 2,168 TGCS; 84 TLCS) demonstrate growing integration into global and local citation networks.

Pakistan (50; 2,109 TGCS; 31 TLCS) and Indonesia (20; 2,543 TGCS; 16 TLCS) contribute steadily but have lower citation metrics, suggesting opportunities for increased International collaboration.

 

Countries with smaller publication volumes but high per-paper citation impact include Ireland (13; 4,447 TGCS; 57 TLCS) and New Zealand (12; 2,948 TGCS; 29 TLCS). This indicates highly targeted, high-quality contributions that resonate with both local and international audiences.

Interpretation

 

The dual TGCS–TLCS perspective shows that:

1. TGCS dominance reflects global reach, often associated with large research networks and collaborations.
2. TLCS strength indicates centrality within the field’s core literature and strong thematic integration.
3. Countries with high TLCS but moderate TGCS are often regionally focused yet deeply engaged in the specialized discourse.
4. Nations with high TGCS but low TLCS tend to work on topics with broader, possibly interdisciplinary, appeal beyond the dataset’s primary network.

Global citations andlocal citation networks reveal deeper thematic relevance and scholarly integration, particularly valuable in applied and region-specific domains like agriculture and climate change.

International Collaboration (Citation Impact)

International Collaboration Over the 30-year periods,the 128 most prolific countries saw an increase generally in the number of publications and Citations. Table_1 shows the number of these countries’ publications accounted for total number of publications worldwide. The most productive and the highest number of collaborations with USA with (TP=354, TC=26,538),followed by the UK (156), with (TP=375, TC=17,027), Australia(TP=194, TC=15,148), Germany (TP=156, TC=11,668), and People’s R China(TP=140, TC=11,451).

There are clear benefits to be had from international collaboration in research, and researchers can access skills and experience from others scientists. Publications are an indicator that can be used for the detailed analysis of scientific output of a country. These can be used as a proxy measure to examine the relative strengths and weaknesses of a country. There were as many as 127 countries actively engaged in Agriculture and climate change research in India,which produced 2,460 papers during 1930-2020.

Overall, TLCS analysis underscores that while research volume and local influence are often correlated, certain countries achieve high recognition through impactful and highly cited contributions, regardless of their total publication count.

TLCS Analysis

National Research Influence in Agriculture and Climate Change: TLCS Analysis

An assessment of Total Local Citation Scores (TLCS)—which measures the influence of publications within the specific dataset—provides insights into the relative recognition and impact of each country’s research contributions in agriculture and climate change.

           The United States leads with 354 records and the highest TLCS of 436, reflecting its central position and sustained influence within the core literature of this field. The United Kingdom follows with 156 publications and a TLCS of 375, indicating a strong scholarly footprint despite a smaller publication volume compared to the USA. Australia ranks third with 147 publications and a TLCS of 194, showing notable recognition within the research network.

            Mexico emerges as a distinctive case with 73 publications but a remarkably high TLCS of 299, suggesting that its research outputs are highly interconnected and influential within the dataset. Similarly, Kenya (51 publications; TLCS 137) demonstrates strong local impact, indicating active engagement in regionally and globally relevant research themes.

European countries such as Germany (125 publications; TLCS 156), France (68; TLCS 74), and the Netherlands (64; TLCS 71) maintain visible positions, while China (129; TLCS 140) and Canada (74; TLCS 131) reflect both substantial contributions and growing scholarly influence.

Notably, Bangladesh (78; TLCS 93) and Philippines (23; TLCS 84) represent developing nations whose research is gaining local citations, pointing to increasing integration into the global research network. Smaller nations such as Ireland (13; TLCS 57) and New Zealand (12; TLCS 29) exhibit high per-publication impact, even with limited outputs.

Some countries, such as Japan (47; TLCS 9) and Indonesia (20; TLCS 16), show relatively lower TLCS despite significant publication numbers, suggesting either newer research outputs that have not yet accumulated citations or a focus on niche topics with limited cross-referencing in the dataset.

The scientometric analysis of International collaboration in agriculture and climate change research reveals significant disparities in publication output and citation impact across countries. The top contributors demonstrate both high research productivity and substantial global scientific influence, as indicated by Total Global Citation Scores (TGCS).

Chart- II

The United States leads with 354 publications and an impressive 26,538 citations, reflecting its dominant role in advancing research in this domain and its strong citation impact. The United Kingdom ranks second, contributing 156 publications with 17,027 citations, closely followed by Australia with 147 publications and 15,148 citations, indicating active engagement and high research visibility.

European countries such as Germany (125 publications; 11,668 citations), France (68 publications; 9,054 citations), and the Netherlands (64 publications; 6,669 citations) show strong research outputs, with notable influence in global scholarship. China also emerges as a significant contributor, with 129 publications and 11,451 citations, reflecting its growing role in climate and agriculture research.

Countries from the Global South, such as Mexico (73 publications; 7,549 citations), Kenya (51 publications; 5,590 citations), South Africa (41 publications; 4,414 citations), and Brazil (35 publications; 3,241 citations), indicate active participation, often in collaboration with global research networks. Asian nations, including Bangladesh (78 publications; 2,576 citations), Pakistan (50 publications; 2,109 citations), Thailand (29 publications; 3,035 citations), and Indonesia (20 publications; 2,543 citations), also contribute significantly, highlighting the importance of agricultural and climate research in climate-vulnerable regions.

Smaller nations such as Ireland (13 publications; 4,447 citations) and New Zealand (12 publications; 2,948 citations) exhibit high citation averages per publication, suggesting that their research outputs, while fewer in number, are highly impactful in the scientific community.

Yearwise growth of publications

Overall, the data highlights that while high-income countries dominate in both volume and impact, emerging economies and climate-affected regions are increasingly visible in the international research landscape, underscoring the collaborative and globally relevant nature of agriculture and climate change research.

Keyword occurrences

The analysis of indexed keywords reveals the thematic focus areas in agriculture and climate change research. Frequently occurring terms represent the conceptual backbone of the field, indicating both established areas of inquiry and emerging trends.

The most prominent keyword in the dataset is “climate change”and “agriculture” whichconfirms the strong emphasis on agricultural systems within the climate change discourse.

Highly Cited Countries

The analysis of highly cited countries, based on Total Global Citation Scores (TGCS) and Total Local Citation Scores (TLCS), reveals clear differences between research productivity, international recognition, and influence within the core literature of agriculture and climate change research.

1.      Global citations

 

The United States is the most influential contributor, with 354 publications, the highest TGCS (26,538) and TLCS (436), reflecting both exceptional global reach and strong embeddedness within the field’s citation network. The United Kingdom follows with 156 publications, 17,027 TGCS, and 375 TLCS, indicating a substantial research footprint. Australia ranks third in global citations (15,148 TGCS) and TLCS (194), with high per-paper influence.

2. High Local Impact Relative to Global Recognition

 

3.  Global Reach but Lower Local Integration

Some research outputs are widely cited internationally but less central to the dataset’s citation clusters.

1. Germany (125; 11,668 TGCS; 156 TLCS) and China (129; 11,451 TGCS; 140 TLCS) have extensive global reach yet moderate TLCS values.
2. Japan (47; 3,419 TGCS; 9 TLCS) is an extreme case of high global but low local impact, indicating work that appeals to broader, possibly interdisciplinary audiences outside the dataset’s thematic core.

4. Evolving Contributors from Developing Regions

 

Several developing countries show rising research presence, with growing TGCS and TLCS.

1. Bangladesh (78; 2,576 TGCS; 93 TLCS) and the Philippines (23; 2,168 TGCS; 84 TLCS) have strong integration into the network and address regionally critical topics.
2. Pakistan (50; 2,109 TGCS; 31 TLCS) and Afghanistan (16; 655 TGCS; 80 TLCS) also contribute meaningfully, with increasing scholarly visibility.

5. High Citation Efficiency in Small Output Nations

 

Some nations produce a limited number of publications but achieve high average citation rates, indicating targeted, high-quality contributions.

1. Ireland (13; 4,447 TGCS; 57 TLCS) and New Zealand (12; 2,948 TGCS; 29 TLCS) exemplify this pattern.
2. Uruguay (2; 1,769 TGCS; 26 TLCS) shows extremely high global citations per publication.

Findings and conclusions

 

1. Dominance of High-Income Countries

Apart from India the USA, UKand Australia are the top three contributors in both publication volume and citation impact (TGCS and TLCS), indicating their leadership in agriculture and climate change research.

• Dual Impact Patterns

Some countries (e.g., USA, UK) score highly in both TGCS and TLCS, reflecting global reach and local thematic integration.Others (e.g., Japan, Germany, China) have strong TGCS but relatively lower TLCS, suggesting global visibility without centrality in the dataset’s core literature.

• Regional Leaders with Strong Local Impact

Mexico, Kenya, and Nepal show high TLCS relative to TGCS, indicating strong influence within regional or thematic research clusters despite moderate global citation counts.

• Emerging Contributors from Developing Regions

Bangladesh, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Afghanistan demonstrate growing research outputs and integration into the global network, especially on regionally critical issues like food security and adaptation.

• High Citation Efficiency in Low-Volume Nations

Countries such as Ireland, New Zealand, and Uruguay have small publication counts but high average citations per paper, indicating targeted, high-impact research contributions.

 

Conclusions

This scientometric analysis shows that agriculture and climate change research areboth globally distributed and regionally specialized in India.

High-income nations dominate in terms of both quantity and global citation impact, leveraging large-scale collaborations and well-resourced research systems.

Certain developing and climate-vulnerable countries achieve high local citation influence, suggesting deep thematic engagement within their regions and networks.

The dual TGCS–TLCS approach reveals that global impact does not always align with local network influence-both metrics are necessary to fully understand scholarly leadership.

Strengthening collaboration between global leaders and regionally embedded researchers could enhance knowledge exchange, increase research relevance, and bridge the gap between global visibility and local problem-solving.

 The Indian agricultural sector actually requires very advanceddesigns for the upliftment of this sector. Also, without automation, agriculture is hard and back-breaking work. This has resulted in most farmers’ children leaving farming and going for other vocations. Farmers get more money in selling their land to constructors, malls and workshops. This has put more pressure on farmland, thereby requiring technologies to increase productivity so that shrinking farmland can feed the billion-plus people of India in the future. India, though one of the biggest producers of agricultural products, has very low farm productivity, with the average only 33 percent of the best farms world vide. This needs to be increased so that farmers can get more remuneration from the same piece of land with less labour.

Overall, the findings highlight the importance of balanced international collaboration, ensuring that research is not only widely cited but also deeply connected to the contexts where climate change impacts on agriculture in India are most acute.

Acknowledgment

I sincerely express my gratitude to Dr. M. Surulinathi, Assistant Professor, LIS, BDU, Trichy, who hassupported me in the preparation of this article. I am especially thankful to A..Shanmuganathi-, Library Assistant, K.Balendran, Librarian, Constituent College, Srirangam, Trichy, mentors, and peers for their valuable insights and encouragement. I also acknowledge the contributions of the institutions, resources, and research works that have provided guidance and reference for this study.

References :

1. Surulinathi, M., and Pandiyarajan K. “Indian contribution to Agriculture and Climate change Research: A Scientometric Studies, vol. 16, no. 89, 2025, pp. 94061-94069.

2. Surulinathi, M., Gupta, B. M., Bhatkal, S. N., & Bansal, M. (2021). Covid-19 and Environmental Sciences: A Scientometric Assessment of India’s Publications. Journal of Young Pharmacists, 13(3), S115.

3. Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., & Fernández, M. (2008). Webometric ranking of world universities: Introduction, methodology, and future developments. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2-3), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720802254031

4. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mappinganalysisJournalof Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

5. García, J. A., Rodríguez-Sánchez, R., Fdez-Valdivia, J., & Robinson-García, N. (2012). Mapping academic institutions according to their web visibility and scholarly output. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378–2398. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22727

6. Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., … & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383

7. IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844

8. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

9. Web of Science Group. (2025). Web of Science Core Collection [Data set]. Clarivate Analytics. https://www.webofscience.com