Introduction
The Antarctic continent is one of the most pristine regions on the planet (Stefenon et al. Reference Stefenon, Roesch and Pereira2013). Since the time of the Heroic Era of Antarctic Exploration (Edinburgh & Day Reference Edinburgh and Day2016), its environmental uniqueness has attracted research interest in disciplines related to biology, ecology, multidisciplinary geosciences, oceanography and atmospheric sciences (Xavier et al. Reference Xavier, Barbosa, Agustí, Alonso-Sáez, Alvito and Ameneiro2013, Ji et al. Reference Ji, Pang and Zhao2014) and, more recently, in social sciences related to tourism and education (Salmon & Priestley Reference Salmon and Priestley2019, Cajiao et al. Reference Cajiao, Albertos, Tejedo, Muñoz-Puelles, Garilleti and Lara2020, Cajiao et al. Reference Cajiao, Benayas, Tejedo and Leung2021, Tejedo et al. Reference Tejedo, Benayas, Cajiao, Leung, De Filippo and Liggett2022). Antarctica and the Southern Ocean play key roles as sentinels of global change, with climate, pollution and ocean circulation being highly relevant topics of study (Convey Reference Convey2023). Owing to its natural and legal characteristics, Antarctica presents unique opportunities to monitor processes of global influence (López Reference López2011). Furthermore, the growing recognition of the importance of Antarctica in environmental issues, particularly climate change, is one of the reasons for the increase in Antarctic science (O’Reilly et al. Reference O'Reilly, Oreskes and Oppenheimer2012, Chown & Brooks Reference Chown and Brooks2019). For instance, the accelerated melting of the Antarctic ice sheet and changes in the deep-sea currents are of particular interest because of their global physical, social, political and economic repercussions (Demiroglu & Hall Reference Demiroglu and Hall2020, Jang et al. Reference Jang, Doh and Choi2020, Gunn et al. Reference Gunn, Rintoul, England and Bowen2023).
Antarctic exploration dates back to the first half of the nineteenth century. In the second half of that century, most expeditions were promoted by geographical societies of various countries (Fu & Ho Reference Fu and Ho2016). It was not until after the International Geophysical Year (1957–1958) that Antarctica was declared a continent for peace and research because of the signing of the Antarctic Treaty (AT). Simultaneously, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) was promoted as an advisory body to the AT on scientific matters, assuming responsibility for the initiation, promotion and coordination of Antarctic scientific research (López Reference López2011). The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) is one of the most successful international agreements in the world and is an example of global governance, ensuring that Antarctica remains a natural reserve dedicated to scientific research (Berkman Reference Berkman2009). The AT and other Antarctic conventions, such as the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), provide guidelines and procedures for the proper management of this continent, enabling cooperation between countries and research groups (Dastidar & Ramachandran Reference Dastidar and Ramachandran2008). Sharing logistical resources and technologies facilitates research activities that are difficult to conduct individually (Kennicutt et al. Reference Kennicutt, Kim, Rogan-Finnemore, Anadakrishnan, Chown, Colwell and Escutia2016, Jang et al. Reference Jang, Doh and Choi2020).
In 1982, Spain signed the AT, and in 1988 and 1989 it installed in the South Shetland Islands the scientific bases Juan Carlos I (Livingston Island) and Gabriel de Castilla (Deception Island), respectively (López Reference López2011). During this time of research activities carried out by the Spanish Antarctic programme, Andrés Barbosa stands out among pioneering Spanish researchers. Andrés was a Spanish scientist who made significant contributions to Antarctic science, primarily in ecology and biological research (Xavier et al. Reference Xavier, Barbosa, Agustí, Alonso-Sáez, Alvito and Ameneiro2013). Between 2018 and 2021, he held the position of polar research coordinator of the Spanish State Research Agency (AEI). Additionally, he played an active role in SCAR and CCAMLR (de los Ríos & Merino Reference de los Ríos and Merino2023).
In 1988, Spain obtained consultative membership status in the AT, which resulted in a major boost in the involvement of Spanish research agencies. Since then, the Spanish National Antarctic Programme (NAP) has contributed significantly to global knowledge of the biology, geology, oceanography and meteorology of Antarctica. By 2006, the Spanish NAP ranked 10th in scientific publications on Antarctica, contributing 4% of the total number of publications on the region (López Reference López2011). Although such research has been prolific, it is considered necessary to critically analyse the trends in Spanish research and identify future lines of action towards achieving the highest standards of quality by looking at the relevance, sustainability and internationalization of this research. Quality science would ideally ensure maintaining and expanding the Antarctic ecosystem, supporting the cultural values of scientific knowledge, cooperation and conservation in a region and preserving them against the agents of global change (Pertierra et al. Reference Pertierra, Santos-Martin, Hughes, Avila, Caceres and de Filippo2021). This requires, in our view, the strategic filling of knowledge gaps (Pertierra et al. Reference Pertierra, Varliero, Barbosa, Biersma, Convey and Chown2024), minimizing redundancies with other parties in such endeavours, favouring international cooperation and interdisciplinarity towards increasing the quality of results and maximizing the outreach of such research, all in the spirit of peace and conservation of the AT. Scientific knowledge must also support management within the ATS by providing relevant information for decision-making within the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs), the central forum for Antarctic decision-making (Article IX, AT).
In this context, it is of interest to analyse scientific advances and to gain a historical perspective on the progress of knowledge. One way to conduct such an analysis is by studying the dynamics of scientific production through publications in prestigious international journals. Different bibliometric analyses such as those proposed by Dastidar & Ramachandran (Reference Dastidar and Ramachandran2008), Campbell et al. (Reference Campbell, Picard-Aitken, Côté, Caruso, Valentim and Edmonds2010), Ji et al. (Reference Ji, Pang and Zhao2014) and Fu & Ho (Reference Fu and Ho2016) were implemented to provide insights into the international impact, evolution and expansion of research in various areas. They can also provide ideas for topics that require further research (Wang & Su Reference Wang and Su2020, Donthu et al. Reference Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, Pandey and Lim2021). Ji et al. (Reference Ji, Pang and Zhao2014) argue that future research directions are underpinned by the results of current research, and that bibliometric analyses help to identify options for future topics on which research can be conducted. Several studies have analysed global scientific production regarding the Antarctic continent (Hua et al. Reference Hua, Li and Yuan2014, Ji et al. Reference Ji, Pang and Zhao2014, Fu & Ho Reference Fu and Ho2016, Kim & Jung Reference Kim and Jung2016, Jang et al. Reference Jang, Doh and Choi2020), and on some of the islands of Maritime Antarctica (Benayas et al. Reference Benayas, Pertierra, Tejedo, Lara, Bermúdez, Hughes and Quesada2013, Tejedo et al. Reference Tejedo, Gutiérrez, Pertierra and Benayas2015). In addition, researchers such as Stefenon et al. (Reference Stefenon, Roesch and Pereira2013), Xavier et al. (Reference Xavier, Gray and Hughes2018), González-Aravena et al. (Reference González-Aravena, Krüger, Rebolledo, Jaña, Aguayo-Lobo and Leppe2023) and Karatekin et al. (Reference Karatekin, Uzun, Ager, Convey and Hughes2023) have analysed Antarctic scientific productivity in NAPs such as those of Brazil, Portugal, Chile and Turkey. Their primary findings indicated an increase in the scientific productivity of these countries. These studies highlight the crucial role of government funding in Antarctic research, particularly in the case of the latter three countries, where the establishment of strategic polar research programmes has been linked to an increase in scientific production. The work conducted by López & Durán (Reference López and Durán2002) provided valuable insights into Spanish scientific production in the field of Antarctic publications. However, their study primarily focused on specific aspects and did not encompass a comprehensive global analysis or detailed examination of the collected data. Furthermore, a more thorough review of the articles included in their study could enhance and update their findings, potentially reducing the risk of unintended biases and the use of outdated information as more than 20 years have passed since the publication of their study.
Spain represents an interesting case study because of its position in global socioeconomic indices and its efforts in Antarctic research. According to Hughes & Hughes (Reference Hughes and Hughes2024), Spain produced 1684 academic papers on Antarctica between 2012 and 2021, ranking 10th globally in terms of academic contributions. In terms of scientific production, Spain ranked 12th in the 2016–2020 period, contributing 3.61% of the world’s scientific production (Fundación CYD Reference Fundación2022). Additionally, in 2019, Spain had the 13th highest gross domestic product (GDP) in the world (Camargo et al. Reference Camargo, Barcena, Soares, Sschmidt and Andaluz2020). However, it allocates only 1.41% of its GDP to scientific research, much lower than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 2.68% and the European Union (EU) average of 2.20% (Fundación CYD Reference Fundación2022). These data highlight the great efforts Spain has made in Antarctic research, being one of the 29 consultative countries of the AT.
The first objective of our research is to assess the global production of Antarctic research between 1980 and 2023. The second objective is to provide an updated and thoroughly detailed review of the evolution of Antarctic research conducted within the Spanish NAP since the time of the first presence of Spanish researchers on the continent. Lastly, the third objective is to analyse Spain’s contribution to ATCM papers in terms of policymaking. Doing so allows us to determine the growth and biases of this national research programme, offering a global perspective on the evolution of scientific contributions over the last 43 years.
Materials and methods
The primary methodology for the first two objectives of this study involves an analysis of scientometric indicators (González-Aravena et al. Reference González-Aravena, Krüger, Rebolledo, Jaña, Aguayo-Lobo and Leppe2023) at two different scales. In the first phase, international scientific production in Antarctica is analysed, whereas the second phase focuses on the study of publications from the Spanish NAP. Both searches considered all publications from 1980 to 2023, with the aim of compiling, for the first time, a complete record of all Spanish scientific contributions to Antarctic research. In addition, in honour of researcher Andrés Barbosa, we analysed his contributions to the Spanish NAP, focusing on his collaborative networks, research productivity and the impact of his work through citation metrics.
Similar to other international bibliometric analyses (Dastidar & Ramachandran Reference Dastidar and Ramachandran2008, Ji et al. Reference Ji, Pang and Zhao2014, Fu & Ho Reference Fu and Ho2016, Kim & Jung Reference Kim and Jung2016, Jang et al. Reference Jang, Doh and Choi2020, Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Zou, Peng, Lan and Zhang2023), we use information from the Web of Science database (Core Collection). Three sources of information were employed to identify publications of interest: the Science Citation Index (SCI), the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and the Art and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI).
Key word searches have been widely used in bibliometric analyses of Antarctic research (Dastidar & Persson Reference Dastidar and Persson2005, Dastidar Reference Dastidar2007, Dastidar & Ramachandran Reference Dastidar and Ramachandran2008, Ji et al. Reference Ji, Pang and Zhao2014, Jang et al. Reference Jang, Doh and Choi2020). We chose to use the key words: ‘Antarc’, ‘Antartid’, ‘Antartic’, ‘Antártica’, ‘Océano Austral’ and ‘Southern Ocean’. The last two key words were added because of the lack of articles related to oceanography that did not explicitly mention Antarctica but were south of latitude 60°S; therefore, excluding them would introduce bias. These key words were searched in the title, abstract, author key words and KeyWords Plus. The latter is unique to Web of Science, being derived from words and phrases in the titles of cited articles, complementing traditional key words or title-based retrieval (Joshi Reference Joshi2016).
The use of a generic term often results in finding articles and studies unrelated to scientific research. Therefore, it is important to define exclusion terms to obtain a more accurate database. Based on previous research, we decided to exclude all publications containing the terms ‘Candida antarctica’, ‘Antarctic Arthrobacter’, ‘Nothofagus Antarctic’, ‘Amphibolis antarct’, ‘Antarctic krill oil’ or ‘Pseudozyma antarctica’, ‘Dicksonia antarctica’ and ‘Durvillaea antarctica’. These articles and publications were identified as being unrelated to scientific research in Antarctica.
We then conducted a manual review by reading all titles, abstracts and study areas of the articles obtained in the search, identifying and excluding those that did not align with Antarctic research but mentioned one of the key words used for other reasons (Linnenluecke et al. Reference Linnenluecke, Marrone and Singh2020). Given the 43 year period of article searches at the global level, a manual review was not performed because the total number of articles obtained that exceeded 75 000. This introduces a certain bias into the global data obtained because the number of articles genuinely dedicated to Antarctic studies was smaller than that collected in the key word search.
To analyse Antarctic publications by researchers affiliated with Spanish institutions, the search was refined to include articles with at least one Spanish institutional affiliation. Therefore, research production by Spanish-born researchers but conducted overseas exclusively for non-Spanish institutions (e.g. postdoctoral studies) were not counted here. This provides a good representation of science conducted directly under the Spanish NAP. A review of the acknowledgements of the Antarctic publications analysed revealed that 70% explicitly mentioned national funding sources. It is very probable that a portion of the remaining 30% also received public funding, even though it was not explicitly acknowledged. This suggests that the majority of publishable Antarctic scientific research is conducted within the framework of the Spanish NAP. Additionally, the 60°S parallel was used as a geographical boundary to distinguish Antarctica-themed research from non-Antarctic research (Stotz et al. Reference Stotz, Salgado-Luarte, Rios, Acuña-Rodriguez, Carrasco-Urra, Molina-Montenengro and Gianoli2013). The methodology applied to the analysis of the Spanish NAP articles is shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1. Outline for searching and analysing Spanish National Antarctic Programme publications related to Antarctica.
In order to determine in detail the subject areas of scientific production in Antarctica, the classification into subject categories carried out by the Web of Science itself was followed. Therefore, each document was assigned to one or more of the 250 subject categories into which the journals were classified (Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Sun, Shu and Huang2022).
To identify groups of countries with common characteristics in the evolution of their scientific production in Antarctica, we used a cluster method for time series based on predictions (Alonso et al. Reference Alonso, Berrendero, Hernández and Justel2006). The similarity matrix between the historical series of the countries was calculated using the ‘diss.PRED’ function of the TSclust package (Montero & Vilar Reference Montero and Vilar2014 ) in R. The matrix elements are the distances between the density functions of the number of articles that each country is expected to produce on a fixed horizon. Predictions are values that combine the present situation and the historical trends of each country. We considered the forecast of the expected scientific production for each country for the 5th International Polar Year (IPY), which is scheduled to begin in 2032. Hierarchical clusters were applied using Ward’s linkage method to this distance matrix and to the Antarctic scientific production of the NAP in 1990. The year 1990 was chosen because prior to this year Antarctic publications were predominantly produced by a small number of countries (only 35 compared to the 198 countries that published between 1990 and 2023). Starting in 1990, a large number of countries began actively participating in this scientific research, allowing for a more representative analysis. Cluster structures were visualized using dendrograms.
The VOSviewer tool was used for network visualization. In a bibliometric network, there are often significant differences between nodes in terms of the number of connections they have with other nodes. Popular nodes, such as those representing highly cited publications, prolific researchers or widely used concepts, can have more connections than less popular nodes. VOSviewer applies association strength normalization to account for these differences, as detailed by Van Eck & Waltman (Reference Van Eck and Waltman2009, Reference Van Eck and Waltman2010). To position the nodes in a two-dimensional space such that strongly related nodes are close to each other and weakly related nodes are distant, VOSviewer uses the VOS mapping technique, where VOS stands for ‘visualization of similarities’ (Van Eck et al. Reference Van Eck, Waltman, Dekker and Van Den Berg2010). Furthermore, VOSviewer automatically assigns nodes to clusters, where a cluster is a set of closely related nodes. Each node was assigned to exactly one cluster. The number of clusters was determined by the resolution parameter (higher values resulted in more clusters). VOSviewer uses colour to indicate the cluster to which each node belongs. To solve the optimization problem required for clustering, VOSviewer uses the smart local moving algorithm introduced by Waltman & Van Eck (Reference Waltman and Van Eck2013). The details of the clustering technique used by VOSviewer have been discussed by Waltman et al. (Reference Waltman, Van Eck and Noyons2010).
Finally, in relation to the third objective, the ATCM Documents Archive (a database managed by the Secretariat of the AT) was consulted to identify documents submitted by Spain on this forum from 1959 to the present. The identified documents were classified by applying several criteria: 1) their typology, differentiating Working Papers (can be submitted by Consultative Parties and Observers, are related to specific agenda items, must be discussed on the meeting floor and Consultative Parties may make decisions on the basis of the recommendations included in them), Information Papers (can be submitted by Consultative and Non-Consultative Parties, Observers and Invited Expert Organizations, may provide supplementary information in relation to a Working Paper or information of relevance to a specific agenda item and do not need to be discussed) and Background Papers (merely informative, are not discussed and do not require decisive action), 2) if they provided scientific knowledge useful for decision-making or applied management (each document was assessed individually to check this possibility based on its content) and 3) if these documents were presented solely by Spain or in collaboration with other Parties, Observers or Invited Expert Organizations (determined via consulting the authorship of each document).
Results
At the global level, the findings related to the first objective indicate that the worldwide scientific production on Antarctica in Web of Science has been 76 901 documents between 1980 and 2023. In this period, there has been a constant increase (more than 1000%) from 278 documents in the first year analysed to 3163 in 2023. The year 2021 had the highest number of articles published, at 3631. Regarding the main research topics, the four Web of Science subject categories with the largest number of Antarctic-related publications were plotted, with multidisciplinary geosciences standing out as the field with the most articles, followed by oceanography, atmospheric sciences and ecology (Fig. 2). The growth trends of the latter three categories are similar, but multidisciplinary geosciences exhibits a greater growth trend, being the only category that exceeded 1000 published articles in a single year (2021).
Figure 2. Number of Antarctic publications globally (in grey) and the most studied topics.
Table I presents the total and decadal contributions (as a percentage) of the leading countries conducting research in Antarctica. The NAPs with the highest number of publications in Antarctica were those of the USA, with 33.66% authorship, 16.08% in England (as part of the UK, which represents 17.67%), 11.88% in Australia and 11.83% in Germany. The USA has a leading position in Antarctic document authorship, although with there having been a slight decline in its contribution, from 35% in the 1980s to 32% in the early 2020s. Table I also highlights other significant trends, such as the gradual and progressive increase in publications from countries such as China, Brazil and Chile, which have increased their scores in global authorship. China is the sixth most productive NAP in Antarctic research (over 7% of the global Antarctic research authorship), reaching second place between 2020 and 2023. Similarly, Brazil and Chile have increased their respective contributions to Antarctic research publications, with Brazil’s contributions rising from 0.36% in the 1980s to 5.02% in the early 2020s, and with publications from Chile increasing from 0.56% to 5.28% over the same period.
Table I. Percentages of global contributions by various National Antarctic Programmes to Antarctic science by decade.
NAPs such as those of Spain and Argentina show a steady increase in the percentage of Antarctic publications, with Spain’s rising from an initial 2% in the 1990s to 5% between 2020 and 2023. A positive trend was observed over the years. In the first decade, Spain did not appear among the 23 most productive countries; in the following decade, it climbed to 14th place, then moved up to 10th, then 11th, and then returned to 10th place in subsequent decades. Currently, the Spanish NAP accounts for 4% of Antarctic publications and holds 11th position among the most productive countries worldwide. By contrast, countries such as Russia and Japan have shown declining trends in recent decades. A significant gap can be observed between the USA and other countries throughout history, reflecting the size and research potential of this leading country in global research (Table I).
Figure 3 shows the clustering of the 18 most productive countries during the period 1990–2023, considering their production in 1990 (Fig. 3a) and the distribution of the number of publications that each country is expected to produce by the 5th IPY in 2032 (Fig. 3b). Five separate clusters were identified for both years. Point forecasts for 2032 production and the distance matrix used in the cluster of forecast densities are available in Tables S1 & S2.
Figure 3. Dendrograms of the hierarchical clustering based on a. the absolute differences of each country’s publications in the year 1990 and b. the density functions of the number of publications that each country is expected to produce in 2032 (5th International Polar Year (IPY)). The blue lines separate the five clusters identified in each year.
Regarding the second objective of this research, the search for articles on Antarctic research conducted by researchers affiliated with Spanish institutions yielded 3223 publications between 1980 and 2023. The refinement process left a total of 2287 Antarctic articles related to the Spanish NAP. This level of refinement was not performed globally because of the size of the dataset, at over 75 000 articles.
Since the first Spanish Antarctic publication by Legaz et al. (Reference Legaz, Diaz-Santos and Vicente1986), the Spanish NAP has progressively increased the number of articles it publishes annually. When this output was broken down by decade, 195 articles were published between 1990 and 1999. This number nearly tripled in the following decade (2000–2009) to 533 publications. The greatest scientific productivity occurred between 2010 and 2019, with 1026 publications, representing an average of ~100 articles per year (Fig. 4). Comparing the growth rates of Spanish production with that of the world, it can be seen that, from 2000 (when there was already a considerable volume of documents) until 2023, Spain’s production had grown by 200%, while the increase in the world’s production regarding Antarctica was 90%.
Figure 4. Number of publications on Antarctica by the Spanish National Antarctic Programme per year (in grey) and the most studied Antarctic topics worldwide.
The 2287 Spanish-authored publications collected in this study cover 111 subject categories in the Web of Science (Fig. 4). These categories can be automatically grouped into a series of knowledge areas, highlighting the four areas with the highest number of articles at the global level: multidisciplinary geosciences (accounting for 21.8% of the total Spanish NAP publications), ecology (19.3%), oceanography (11.5%) and meteorology atmospheric sciences (9.3%). It is worth noting that these thematic areas overlap, implying that articles classified under ecology may also appear in related areas of the Web of Science, such as biodiversity conservation, marine freshwater biology or microbiology.
The co-occurrence analysis shown in Fig. 5 identifies five clusters or thematic areas of Antarctic research in Spain, indicating their research proximity. Each cluster was classified based on the main themes published by the Spanish NAP (themes extracted from the Web of Science). Thus, the five groups created indicate, based on their key words, the most studied topics in Spanish Antarctic science.
Figure 5. Co-occurrence network of key words from Spanish National Antarctic Programme research on Antarctica with only words that were repeated at least 20 times using the full counting method. The distance between the clusters reflects their closeness or affinity in terms of research, whereas the size of the nodes corresponds to the frequency with which a word appears in the research.
The words that are most frequently repeated in the blue cluster in Fig. 5 are associated with topics such as ecology, biodiversity conservation and marine freshwater biology. In contrast, the red group in Fig. 5 is more closely related to themes such as microbiology, environmental sciences and ecology. The purple group in Fig. 5 has a thematic relationship with the red group, as shown by the proximity between words, but it is more closely linked to oceanography, marine freshwater biology and environmental sciences. The last two groups (green and yellow in Fig. 5) are associated with themes such as multidisciplinary geosciences and oceanography, with the difference being that the green group also includes concepts that are more related to meteorology than the yellow group (Fig. 5).
The repetition of specific locations in the abstracts of the analysed articles can also be an indicator of the most frequently studied areas in Spanish Antarctic research. For example, the following locations appear (in order of most to least mentions): Southern Ocean (552), Antarctic Peninsula (482), South Shetland Islands (281), Deception Island (263), Weddell Sea (237), Livingston Island (194), Bransfield Strait (164), Bellingshausen Sea (120), Scotia Sea (111), Byers Peninsula (97), Ross Sea (95), Drake Passage (87) and King George Island (72), standing out among other Antarctic territories (Fig. 5).
From the first Spanish NAP publication on Antarctica until 1989, only two publications were identified. A total of 195 articles were published between 1990 and 1999 (Fig. 6). During this period, 60 articles focused on ecology, 31 on multidisciplinary geosciences and 29 on oceanography. The countries with which Spain collaborated the most during this time were Germany, with 21 joint articles, followed by the USA with 11 articles and Chile and England (part of the UK) with 10 articles each.
Figure 6. Spanish National Antarctic Programme collaboration network by decade using the full counting method.
Between 2000 and 2009 (Fig. 6), the main research topics were ecology (with 123 publications), followed by oceanography (with 107 publications) and multidisciplinary geosciences (with 99 publications). This increase in scientific output was also reflected in the significant growth in international collaborations. During this period, the NAPs with which Spain collaborated the most were those of Germany (89 articles), the USA (73 articles), Italy (55 articles) and England (part of the UK; 52 articles).
In the 2010s (Fig. 6), these research topics shifted, with multidisciplinary geosciences becoming the area with the highest number of publications (244 in total), followed by environmental sciences (202 articles), and ecology (198 articles). The main international collaborators were the USA (265 articles), England (part of the UK; 233 articles), Germany (197 articles) and Australia (124 articles).
Finally, between 2020 and 2023 (Fig. 6), the most common topics were environmental sciences (131 articles), multidisciplinary geosciences (125 articles) and Ecology (61 articles). The main collaborators during this period were the USA (152 articles), England (part of the UK; 135 articles), Germany (102 articles) and Australia (83 articles).
As can be seen in Fig. 7, the USA, England (part of the UK), Germany, Italy, France, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Chile and Canada are the top 10 countries that maintained the highest number of collaborative publications with Spain over the 43 years considered in this study. However, the number of countries with research associated with Spanish NAP researchers and institutions is very broad, including many countries other than those in the top 10 collaborators.
Figure 7. Spanish National Antarctic Programme research collaboration networks between 1980 and 2023 using the full counting method.
Regarding the third objective of this research, Fig. 8 shows Spain’s contribution to the ATCMs. The number of documents submitted by this party has increased over the years. The same trend is observed for documents prepared in collaboration with other countries or stakeholders belonging to the ATS. Spain has played a more relevant role in this international forum in recent years, increasing its relations with other parties with common interests in certain topics. Documents providing scientific knowledge to support decision-making have also grown in number, surely boosted both by greater collaboration with other countries with common concerns and by a greater demand within the Spanish authorities to have scientific advice supporting their positions regarding management issues discussed in the framework of the ATCMs.
Figure 8. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) documents (bars) submitted by Spain from 1987 to 2023, including Working Papers, Information Papers and Background Papers. The solid line represents documents providing scientific advice for decision-making or applied management, and the dashed line represents documents submitted in collaboration with other Parties, Observers or Invited Expert Organizations.
A more detailed analysis of the scientific output of Spanish researchers reveals the significant contribution made by Andrés Barbosa. This study identifies him as the Spanish researcher with the second highest number of publications on Antarctica, with a total of 71 publications between 1980 and 2020, surpassed only by Conxita Ávila, who published 95 articles (Fig. 9). Andrés played a significant role within his research team, serving as the member with the highest number of publications and maintaining the most extensive connections within the Spanish Antarctic research community. His most prolific year was 2016, with 11 published articles. His papers were cited 1452 times, with 2023 being the year in which he received the highest number of citations, accumulating 193 records.
Figure 9. (Left) Co-authorship network within the Spanish Antarctic community, featuring authors with more than 10 published Antarctic articles using the full counting method. (Right) Publications and citations of Andrés Barbosa between 1980 and 2023.
Discussion
International and Spanish trends in Antarctic research
Our results on the first and second research objectives highlight significant trends in topics within Antarctic scientific research in recent decades. Interest in the study of Antarctica is also evident from the growing number of publications. While scientific papers on the Web of Science (in all fields of knowledge) have increased by 300% between 1980 and 2023, publications on Antarctica have grown by 1000%. In polar bibliometric studies, Aksnes & Hessen (Reference Aksnes and Hessen2009) found that the predominant theme was geosciences, in contrast to other themes orientated towards exploring ecology and biodiversity conservation. Subsequently, Aksnes et al. (Reference Aksnes, Blöcker, Colliander and Nilsson2023) conducted a study on Arctic research themes, obtaining similar results and identifying geosciences as the main theme. In Antarctic research, Ji et al. (Reference Ji, Pang and Zhao2014) found results very similar to those of our study, with a greater preference for geosciences in general. On a national scale, the Chilean and Brazilian NAPs have shown relatively different patterns. The Brazilian NAP, for example, has concentrated on studying the biological sciences, primarily zoology, ecology and climatology (in decreasing order; Stefenon et al. Reference Stefenon, Roesch and Pereira2013). Meanwhile, González-Aravena et al. (Reference González-Aravena, Krüger, Rebolledo, Jaña, Aguayo-Lobo and Leppe2023) found that research within the Chilean NAP focuses on Antarctic ecosystems, biotechnology and geosciences. This partially aligns with our findings regarding the Spanish NAP.
The clusters of countries with common characteristics in the evolution of their scientific production in Antarctica during the period 1990–2023 show that the US NAP no longer tends to be separated from the rest of the NAPs in the 5th IPY projection, grouping together with England (part of the UK) and China. Germany and Australia also stand out for their tendency to draw closer to this group of leading countries than to the rest. The trend shown by the Chilean NAP’s scientific production in Antarctica is very relevant, as it tends to become closer in magnitude to that of France and Italy, which were in sixth and seventh positions in 2023. It is also relevant to highlight the increase in the number of countries conducting research in Antarctica from 35 in 1990 to 198 between 1990 and 2023. This increase underscores the growing global interest in the challenges faced by the Antarctic continent, extending beyond the signatories of the AT.
Globally, this review revealed that in recent decades Brazil, China and Chile have experienced a progressive increase in the number of annual Antarctic publications. Based on Stefenon et al. (Reference Stefenon, Roesch and Pereira2013), Hong (Reference Hong2021) and González-Aravena et al. (Reference González-Aravena, Krüger, Rebolledo, Jaña, Aguayo-Lobo and Leppe2023), a key factor behind this increase has been the promotion of research through the development of strategic plans to identify and prioritize Antarctic research lines. A polar research strategy in Spain could mean that the number of annual publications increases more than expected and moves away from the current prediction path. Spain might move closer to the group of the most productive countries, as is already happening regarding China and Chile.
In our analysis, the British (sum of the productivity of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland) and Australian NAPs demonstrated outstanding performance in Antarctic research, remaining among the leading countries in terms of global productivity. Both NAPs have national strategic planning that, similarly to the cases mentioned earlier, facilitates greater international presence (McGee & Smith Reference McGee and Smith2017, Bentley et al. Reference Bentley, Siegert, Jones, Meredith, Hendry and Arthur2021). Benayas et al. (Reference Benayas, Quesada and Barbosa2011) and Quesada (Reference Quesada2016) note that NAP research strategies guide scientists towards the most important, relevant and interesting thematic aspects on a global scale, thereby achieving a greater scientific impact. The Spanish NAP could be pushed towards more strategic planning of Antarctic research, taking into account all of the questions, problems and challenges arising from Earth’s global change, thereby ultimately achieving more effective and sustainable Antarctic science and conservation. Currently, the work conducted over the years by Spanish Antarctic researchers has been perhaps more circumstantial, in that it has been largely driven by the initiatives and interests of Spanish researchers of public and private academic and research institutions rather than formulated through an organized prioritization of research lines. Implementing such a strategy would result in greater international presence and impact of Spanish NAP research in this field. Spain has proposed certain Guidelines for a Spanish Polar Strategy (Quesada Reference Quesada2016), which include some aspects related to research. However, these recommendations do not establish strategic research lines or topics; they merely mention the main headings identified by the SCAR Horizon Scan initiative for Antarctica as desirable lines of work (Kennicutt et al. Reference Kennicutt, Chown, Cassano, Liggett, Massom and Peck2014). In addition, they only propose facilitating geographical mobility through agreements with other nations to share or visit bases, promote international scientific cooperation, establish continuity for historical data series, promote long-term research and development programmes, strengthen the National Polar Data Center, promote new lines of research and the incorporation of new scientists, promote participation in international forums, promote the coordination/communication/dissemination of Spanish polar activity and promote new opportunities for young polar researchers.
The results obtained in this review reveal an increase in Antarctic research conducted within the Spanish NAP, which aligns with the findings of other global authors regarding other NAPs (Dastidar & Persson Reference Dastidar and Persson2005, Dastidar Reference Dastidar2007, Dastidar & Ramachandran Reference Dastidar and Ramachandran2008, Aksnes & Hessen Reference Aksnes and Hessen2009, Xavier et al. Reference Xavier, Gray and Hughes2018, Jang et al. Reference Jang, Doh and Choi2020, González-Aravena et al. Reference González-Aravena, Krüger, Rebolledo, Jaña, Aguayo-Lobo and Leppe2023, Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Zou, Peng, Lan and Zhang2023). The data collected show that the Spanish NAP has experienced growth in its Antarctic productivity and international collaborations during the decades analysed. The years 2013 and 2021 were the most productive, with 145 and 146 articles published, respectively. It is noteworthy that productivity in 2013 coincides with the publication of a special issue in the journal Antarctic Science (Lyons et al. Reference Lyons, Quesada and Camacho2013), which focused on research contributions generated on the Byers Peninsula and coordinated by Spanish researchers. The high productivity in 2021, in turn, coincides with a post-COVID-19 pandemic period during which Antarctic research campaigns were very limited, which allowed the authors to spend most of their time analysing accumulated data from previous years.
According to the findings of this study, various bibliometric analyses position the Spanish NAP as having maintained a stable position between 9th and 11th place among the most productive countries regarding Antarctic research over the past 20 years (Dastidar & Ramachandran Reference Dastidar and Ramachandran2008, Ji et al. Reference Ji, Pang and Zhao2014, Kim & Jung Reference Kim and Jung2016). Our review shows that Spanish NAP research productivity at the global level is 4.15%, reflecting an increase over the 2.2% reported by Dastidar & Ramachandran (Reference Dastidar and Ramachandran2008) from 1980 to 2004.
In relation to the third objective of this research, our results show that the connection between the scientific production of the Spanish NAP and Spain’s role in the ATS is multifaceted. In both cases, increases in productivity and international collaboration have been observed in recent years. This points to the importance of generating synergies with other countries to make solid progress both in the generation of scientific knowledge and in the adoption of international agreements. However, the relationship between science and policy is always complex (e.g. Anne et al. Reference Anne, Chloé, Anatole and Camille2018). Agreements reached at the ATCMs are among the primary means for addressing Antarctic conservation and environmental protection issues (Gardiner et al. Reference Gardiner, Gilbert, Liggett and Bode2024). Therefore, greater collaboration between parties is always desirable to increase the chances of reaching such agreements.
Limitations of the methodology
Disentangling the scientific output of the Spanish NAP is a difficult task. The main limitation when conducting bibliometric analyses of large volumes of articles is the difficulty in filtering out those articles that appear in the search but are not related to the focus of the study. Globally, it is assumed that the search for Antarctic-related literature inevitably will include several articles that are not directly linked to Antarctic research. If these articles are not properly filtered, this will introduce bias into the interpretation of the results, which might have affected previous bibliometric studies on Antarctica (Dastidar & Ramachandran Reference Dastidar and Ramachandran2008, Ji et al. Reference Ji, Pang and Zhao2014, Fu & Ho Reference Fu and Ho2016, Kim & Jung Reference Kim and Jung2016, Jang et al. Reference Jang, Doh and Choi2020).
By focusing on the productivity of a specific NAP (i.e. that of Spain), it was possible to review the literature obtained in the initial search. Of the 3223 collected articles, 2287 were identified as Spanish NAP articles after a thorough review. In this process, it was found that 29% of the Spanish NAP articles retrieved in the original search contained bibliometric noise. This error must be considered, as it constitutes a limitation of bibliometric analyses, leading to significant variations in results. This issue has been previously noted by other Antarctic scientific researchers (Tejedo et al. Reference Tejedo, Gutiérrez, Pertierra and Benayas2015, Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Zou, Peng, Lan and Zhang2023) and described in earlier reviews (Linnenluecke et al. Reference Linnenluecke, Marrone and Singh2020).
Another contribution of this study is the identification of new filters that could be incorporated into future bibliometric research in the Antarctic field. Specifically, it has been identified that the search should be completed by adding the terms ‘Océano Austral’ and ‘Southern Ocean’ and incorporating news filters such as ‘Candida antarctica’, ‘Antarctic Arthrobacter’, ‘Nothofagus Antarctic’, ‘Amphibolis antarct’, ‘Antarctic krill oil’ or ‘Pseudozyma antarctica’, ‘Dicksonia antarctica’ and ‘Durvillaea antarctica’.
The incorporation of these new filters and search terms will optimize the retrieval of relevant literature in future bibliometric studies and literature reviews in Antarctica, reducing bibliometric noise and improving the accuracy of these analyses. This methodological advancement represents one of the main contributions of this study; by refining search strategies, it lays the foundation for more rigorous future evaluations of scientific production in this region.
Conclusion
In this study, we analysed scientific advances and historical progress in Antarctic knowledge, both internationally and within the Spanish NAP. This updated and detailed review allows us to understand the evolution of, and provide an assessment of, Spanish NAP research from a global perspective. The high-quality contribution of certain researchers, such as Andrés Barbosa, is also evident.
We quantified and analysed global production in Antarctica and studies produced under the Spanish NAP between 1980 and 2023 by evaluating various characteristics of both bibliometric profiles. From a methodological standpoint, the search and selection strategy used in this study allowed for a more precise bibliometric analysis by removing irrelevant articles.
Internationally, the main research focuses and priorities in Antarctica have been given to topics related to multidisciplinary geosciences, oceanography, atmospheric sciences and ecology, with geosciences being the subject with the largest number of articles. In the Spanish NAP, the main research topics are more equally accounted for, with ecology and multidisciplinary geosciences standing out alongside environmental sciences and studies focusing on biodiversity conservation. Based on the co-occurrence analysis of key words, we identified that Spanish NAP researchers primarily focused on themes related to evolution, climate change, weather, temperature and biodiversity. The South Shetland Islands, such as Livingston Island, King George Island and Deception Island, were among the most frequently explored locations in this analysis. This is consistent with the location of the two Spanish NAP research stations and the permanent field camp of Byers Peninsula (Benayas et al. Reference Benayas, Pertierra, Tejedo, Lara, Bermúdez, Hughes and Quesada2013). However, this also shows the dependency on such facilities and suggests opportunities for guests visiting other NAP facilities to conduct wider science. In the Southern Ocean, the areas most studied under the Spanish NAP are the Weddell Sea, Bransfield Strait and Bellingshausen Sea.
The results show significant international collaboration between the Spanish NAP and other NAPs, such as those of the USA, the UK, Germany, Italy, France, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Chile and Canada. These findings highlight the benefit of strengthening international cooperation, not only with these NAPs, but also with emerging nations that have progressively increased their Antarctic scientific outputs, such as Chile, Brazil and China. Strengthening relations with these countries could be the key to increasing the Spanish NAP’s scientific quality and productivity. This intense international collaboration is reflected in Spain’s contributions to the ATCMs, which are usually submitted in collaboration with other nations.
Our study suggests an interest in developing a strategic plan or priority line for Antarctic research being integrated into the current Spanish Polar Strategy. This plan should be based on the strengths and weaknesses of historical research, as well as the existing international partnering between countries and institutions and gaps offering new opportunities for collaboration. The implementation of these strategies would facilitate the production of exemplary research by tackling both present and forthcoming obstacles recognized by the scientific community.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Department of Ecology at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and the Institute of Geography at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile for providing suitable workspace for the completion of this manuscript. We also appreciate the suggestions offered by various researchers through discussions, which helped improve this research. Finally, we want to remember Andrés Barbosa for his continuous insight and guidance over the years, always given with the utmost consideration and kindness; he will be sorely missed both personally and scientifically.
Author contributions
FR-S and JB conceived the study. FR-S, PT, FL and JB designed the figures. FR-S, LRP, DDF and AJ conducted the bibliometric analyses. All authors helped interpret the results and develop the manuscript’s text.
Financial support
This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation/State Agency of Research (MCIN/AEI), grant PID2020-116520RB-I00. LRP was supported by a Ramon y Cajal (RYC) research contract (RYC2022-036444-I) granted by the Spanish National Research Agency (AEI).
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102025100199.
Open access
