, Mart Saarma , Anu Realo The concept of scientific wealth is defined as the average number of citations per paper published by scientists from a given country or territory over a fixed period. This analysis is based on data from Essential Science Indicators (ESI; ClarivateTM), which ranks authors, institutions, countries, and journals according to publication and citation performance between 2014 and 2024. Twenty years ago, Estonia’s scientific impact was 20% below the ESI world average. Today, the average citation rate of articles by Estonian researchers is 81.7% above the ESI world average, placing Estonia third globally, after Iceland and Singapore, and ahead of its Nordic neighbors and role models, Finland and Sweden. The rapid growth of Estonian science has yet to be fully explained. None of the four groups of factors analyzed ‒ science policies, funding, foreign aid, and research ethos ‒ can fully explain Estonia’s success on its own, especially when compared to its Baltic neighbors, Latvia and Lithuania. Estonia is a prime example of how a fortunate combination of factors can lead to the fastest growth in scientific wealth worldwide, although this specific combination remains to be identified.
Allik, J. 2003. The quality of science in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania after the first decade of independence. Trames-J. Humanit. Soc. Sci., 7(1), 40‒52.
https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2003.1.05
Allik, J. 2008. Quality of Estonian science estimated through bibliometric indicators (1997–2007). Proc. Estonian Acad. Sci., 57(4), 255‒264.
https://doi.org/10.3176/proc.2008.4.08
Allik, J., Lauk, K. and Realo, A. 2020a. Factors predicting the scientific wealth of nations. Cross-Cult. Res., 54(4), 364–397.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120910982
Allik, J., Lauk, K. and Realo, A. 2020b. Indicators of the scientific impact of nations revisited. Trames-J. Humanit. Soc. Sci., 24(2), 231‒250.
https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2020.2.07
Allik, J., Lauk, K. and Realo, A. 2020c. The scientific impact derived from the disciplinary profiles. Front. Res. Metr. Anal., 5(6), 1‒13.
https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.569268
Balzer, H. D. 1985. Is less more? Soviet science in the Gorbachev era. Issues Sci. Technol., 1(4), 29‒46.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43308903
Baykoucheva, S. 2019. Eugene Garfield’s ideas and legacy and their impact on the culture of research. Publications, 7(2), 43.
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020043
Beilmann, M., Lilleoja, L. and Realo, A. 2021. Learning to trust: trends in generalized social trust in the three Baltic countries from 1990 to 2018. In Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being: Insights from Cross-Cultural Studies (Almakaeva, A., Moreno, A. and Wilkes, R., eds). Springer, Cham, 19‒43.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75813-4_2
Boman, B. 2020. What makes Estonia and Singapore so good? Glob. Soc. Educ., 18(2), 181‒193.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1701420
Chankseliani, M., Lovakov, A. and Pislyakov, V. 2021. A big picture: bibliometric study of academic publications from post-Soviet countries. Scientometrics, 126, 8701–8730.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04124-5
Christen, C. A. 2002. At home in the field: Smithsonian Tropical Science Field Stations in the U.S. Panama Canal Zone and the Republic of Panama. Americas,58(4), 537‒575.
https://doi.org/10.1353/tam.2002.0038
Crowe, D. 1988. Bibliographic article: Baltic émigré publishing and scholarship in the Western world. Natl. Pap., 16(2), 225‒241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00905998808408084
Dagiene, E., Larivière, V., Dix, G. and Waltman, L. 2024. Incentivising, excluding, and enduring: the policy dynamics of quantitative research assessment in Lithuania. SocArXiv 9yq38, Center for Open Science.
https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/9yq38
Einasto, J. 2018. Cosmology paradigm changes. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 56, 1‒39.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051748
Garfield, E. 1955. Citation indexes for science. Science, 122(3159), 108‒111.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108
Garfield, E. 1986. The 250 most-cited authors in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index, 1976‒1983. Current Contents, (48), 3‒10.
https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v9p381y1986.pdf
Garfield, E. 1987. Is Japanese science a juggernaut? Current Contents, (46), 342‒348.
https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v10p342y1987.pdf
Garfield, E. 1990a. The Russians are coming! Part 1. The red-hot 100 Soviet scientists, 1973-1988. Current Contents, (24), 5‒18.
https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v13p202y1990.pdf
Garfield, E. 1990b. The Russians are coming! Part 2. The top 50 Soviet papers most cited in the 1973‒1988 Science Citation Index and a look at 1988 research fronts. Current Contents, (25), 3‒13.
https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v13p216y1990.pdf
Gomez, C. J., Herman, A. C. and Parigi, P. 2022. Leading countries in global science increasingly receive more citations than other countries doing similar research. Nat. Hum. Behav., 6(7), 919‒929.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01351-5
Graham, L. R. 1992. Big science in the last years of the big Soviet Union. Osiris, 7(1), 49‒71.
https://doi.org/10.1086/368705
Harzing, A.-W. and Giroud, A. 2014. The competitive advantage of nations: an application to academia. J. Informetr., 8(1), 29‒42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.007
Hazans, M. 2019. Emigration from Latvia: a brief history and driving forces in the twenty-first century. In The Emigrant Communities of Latvia: National Identity, Transnational Belonging, and Diaspora Politics (Kaša, R. and Mieriņa, I., eds). Springer, Cham, 35‒68.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12092-4_3
Hirv, T. 2018. Effects of European Union funding and international collaboration on Estonian scientific impact. J. Scientometr. Res., 7(3), 181‒188.
https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.7.3.29
Hirv, T. 2019. Research consortia determine a significant part of the bibliometric visibility of Estonian science. Trames-J. Humanit. Soc. Sci., 23(3), 287‒308.
https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2019.3.02
Hirv, T. 2022. The interplay of the size of the research system, ways of collaboration, level, and method of funding in determining bibliometric outputs. Scientometrics, 127, 1295–1316.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04232-2
Ilves, T. H. 1994. Science in the former Soviet Union. Science, 265(5168), 13‒13.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.265.5168.13.a
Jurajda, Š., Kozubek, S., Münich, D. and Škoda, S. 2017. Scientific publication performance in post-communist countries: still lagging far behind. Scientometrics, 112(1), 315‒328.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2389-8
Kattel, R. and Mergel, I. 2019. Estonia’s digital transformation: mission mystique and the hiding hand. In Great Policy Successes ('t Hart, P. and Compton, M., eds). Oxford University Press, 143‒160.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198843719.003.0008
Kristapsons, J., Martinson, H. and Dagyte, I. 2003. Baltic R&D Systems in Transitions: Experiences and Future Prospects. Zinātne, Riga.
Lauk, K. and Allik, J. 2018. A puzzle of Estonian science: how to explain unexpected rise of the scientific impact. Trames-J. Humanit. Soc. Sci., 22(4), 329‒344.
https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2018.4.01
Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S. and Bornmann, L. 2014. The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: competition and collaborations. J. Informetr., 8(3), 606‒617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.05.002
Lovakov, A., Panova, A. and Yudkevich, M. 2022. Global visibility of nationally published research output: the case of the post-Soviet region. Scientometrics, 127, 2643–2659.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04326-5
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M. and Delgado López-Cózar, E. 2018. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J. Informetr., 12(4), 1160‒1177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
Martinson, H. 2015. Isolatsioonist akadeemilisse kapitalismi: Eesti Teadusfond 1989‒2011 (From Isolation to Academic Capitalism: Estonian Science Foundation 1989–2011). Eesti Teadusagentuur.
Martinson, H. and Martinson, K. 1999. The history of science in Estonia: a series of collapses and resuscitations. In Science, Technology and Political Change: Proceedings of the XXth International Congress of History of Science, Liège, Belgium, 20‒26 July 1997. Brepols Publishers, 1, 135‒144.
https://doi.org/10.1484/m.Dda-eb.4.00925
May, R. M. 1997. The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275(5301), 793‒796.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5301.793
Moody, O. 2025. Baltic: The Future of Europe. John Murray Press, London.
Öpik, E. J. 1977. About dogma in science, and other recollections of an astronomer. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 15, 1‒18.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.aa.15.090177.000245
Park, A. 2009. End of an Empire? A Conceptualization of the Soviet Disintegration Crisis 1985‒1991. University of Tartu Press.
Peebles, P. J. E. 2012. Seeing cosmology grow. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 50(1), 1‒28.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125526
Peebles, P. J. E. 2024. Tumeaine ja kosmoloogiline konstant (Dark matter and the cosmological constant). Akadeemia, 37(4), 387‒ 390.
https://www.akad.ee/issues/2024-03/4
Prathap, G. 2017. Scientific wealth and inequality within nations. Scientometrics, 113(2), 923‒928.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2511-y
Rodríguez-Navarro, A. and Brito, R. 2022. The link between countries’ economic and scientific wealth has a complex dependence on technological activity and research policy. Scientometrics, 127(5), 2871‒2896.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04313-w
Rousseau, S. and Rousseau, R. 1998. The scientific wealth of European nations: taking effectiveness into account. Scientometrics, 42(1), 75‒87.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02465013
Schiermeier, Q. 2019. How Estonia blazed a trail in science. Nature, 565(7737), 416–418.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00209-7
Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, T. J. and Van Raan, A. F. J. 2003. Holy Grail of science policy: exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics, 57(2), 257‒280.
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024141819302
Wagner, C. S., Zhang, L. and Leydesdorff, L. 2022. A discussion of measuring the top-1% most-highly cited publications: quality and impact of Chinese papers. Scientometrics, 127(4), 1825‒1839.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04291-z
Zavadskas, E. K., Kirvaitis, R. and Dagiene, E. 2011. Scientific publications released in the Baltic States. Scientometrics, 88(1), 179‒190.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0394-x
