What do we mean by Global South? Evidence of a construct validity problem.

This letter to the editor of Scientometrics examines the construct validity problem affecting the concept of 'Global South' in the bibliometric literature: more than 62% of the 14,631 articles indexed in Web of Science (1975-2024) that use the term do not explicitly define it. The authors identify three distinct analytical logics — material/economic, epistemic/relational, and historical-colonial — that produce divergent country sets, generating incompatible results in borderline cases such as BRICS or Gulf economies. In response, they propose a situational classification framework that turns the choice of demarcation criterion into an explicit and comparable analytical decision, and suggest considering the centre/periphery pair as a more rigorous relational alternative for evaluative bibliometrics. The full classification framework is developed in detail in a companion manuscript, available at DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.20643688.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-07-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21631213
Primary Topic
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

What do we mean by Global South? Evidence of a construct validity problem.

María Verónica Forchino, Daniel Torres‐Salinas, Nicolás Robinson‐García
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
preprint

What do we mean by Global South? Evidence of a construct validity problem.

María Verónica Forchino, Daniel Torres‐Salinas, Nicolás Robinson‐García
preprint en

Abstract

This letter to the editor of Scientometrics examines the construct validity problem affecting the concept of 'Global South' in the bibliometric literature: more than 62% of the 14,631 articles indexed in Web of Science (1975-2024) that use the term do not explicitly define it. The authors identify three distinct analytical logics — material/economic, epistemic/relational, and historical-colonial — that produce divergent country sets, generating incompatible results in borderline cases such as BRICS or Gulf economies. In response, they propose a situational classification framework that turns the choice of demarcation criterion into an explicit and comparable analytical decision, and suggest considering the centre/periphery pair as a more rigorous relational alternative for evaluative bibliometrics. The full classification framework is developed in detail in a companion manuscript, available at DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.20643688.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Universidad de Granada (ES)
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.