Ukrainian Antarctic Journal

Vol 23 No 1(30) (2025): Ukrainian Antarctic Journal
Articles

The role of research in Antarctic diplomacy: A scientometric analysis of the Treaty System's impact

PDF
  • Sofiia Zherebchuk,
  • Dmytro Kudas,
  • Sergiy Kuz
Sofiia Zherebchuk
State Institution National Antarctic Scientific Center, Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine
Dmytro Kudas
Odesa Military Academy, Odesa, 65009, Ukraine
Sergiy Kuz
Odesa Military Academy, Odesa, 65009, Ukraine
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33275/1727-7485.1.2025.746
Published July 29, 2025
Keywords
  • Antarctic Treaty System,
  • global environmental challenges,
  • interdisciplinary studies,
  • research impact,
  • science diplomacy
How to Cite
Zherebchuk, S., Kudas, D., & Kuz, S. (2025). The role of research in Antarctic diplomacy: A scientometric analysis of the Treaty System’s impact. Ukrainian Antarctic Journal, 23(1(30), 100-119. https://doi.org/10.33275/1727-7485.1.2025.746

Copyright (c) 2025 Ukrainian Antarctic Journal

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This study delves into the intricate relationship between scientific research and diplomacy within the framework of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), employing a comprehensive scientometric analysis to explore its multifaceted impact. The ATS has played a pivotal role in fostering collaboration among nations. By analysing global publication trends, citation patterns, and co-authorship networks, this research examines how scientific output not only reflects but also drives international cooperation and policy development in polar regions. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the role of research output in supporting the principles of the ATS, with a focus on promoting peace, science, and environmental protection in Antarctica. Specifically, it aims to іnvestigate the contribution of scientific research to international collaboration under the ATS; іdentify global trends and emerging priorities in Antarctic research; assess the impact of interdisciplinary studies in advancing ATS objectives, including climate change mitigation and ecosystem protection. This research adopts a scientometric approach to analyse the global corpus of scientific publications related to Antarctic research. The analysis revealed that the volume of Antarctic related scientific publications has grown significantly over the last two decades, with a notable increase in interdisciplinary studies addressing climate change, biodiversity, and polar ecosystem dynamics. Co-authorship networks highlighted a robust level of international collaboration, underscoring the treaty's success in fostering scientific partnerships. Moreover, open data initiatives, driven by the ATS, were found to play a crucial role in advancing research efficiency and promoting transparency. The study also found that scientific output often influences policy discussions, particularly on climate change mitigation, the designation of marine protected areas, and sustainable resource management in Antarctica. The integration of research into ATS decision-making processes strengthens its effectiveness as a governance system while showcasing the role of science diplomacy in addressing global challenges.

PDF

References

  1. Berkman, P. A. (2007). Earth science in the Antarctic Treaty System. U.S. Geological Survey and The National Academies: USGS OF-2007-1047, 167.
  2. Brady, A.-M. (Ed.). (2013). The emerging politics of Antarctica (1st ed.). Routledge.
  3. Dastidar, P. G., & Ramachandran, S. (2008). Intellectual structure of Antarctic science: A 25-years analysis. Scientometrics, 77, 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1947-x
  4. Dodds, K. (2010). Governing Antarctica: contemporary challenges and the enduring legacy of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. Global Policy, 1(1), 108–115. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2009.00006.x
  5. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
  6. Farman, J. C., Gardiner, B. G., & Shanklin, J. D. (1985). Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature, 315(6016), 207–210.
  7. Fedchuk, A., Zherebchuk, S., & Cheberkus, D. (2021). Global environmental initiatives of the EU in Antarctica: Ukraine’s position harmonization and prospect (preceding Ukraine’s chairmanship in the CCAMLR, 2023–2024). Ukrainian Antarctic Journal, (2), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.33275/1727-7485.2.2021.684
  8. Fu, H. Z., & Ho, Y. S. (2016). Highly cited Antarctic articles using Science Citation Index Expanded: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 109(1), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1992-4
  9. Gluckman, P. D., Bardsley, A., & Kaiser, M. (2021). Brokerage at the science-policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance. Humanity and Social Sciences Communications, 8. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00756-3
  10. González-Aravena, M., Krüger, L., Rebolledo, L., Jaña, R., Aguayo-Lobo, A., Leppe, M., Rondon, R., Santa-Cruz, F., Salinas, C., Trevisan, C., & Cárdenas, C. A. (2023). Antarctic science in Chile: a bibliometric analysis of scientific productivity during the 2009–2019 period. Antarctic Science, 35(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102022000487
  11. Graiff, A., Braun, M., Driemel, A., Ebbing, J., Grossart, H.-P., Harder, T., Hoffman, J. I., Koch, B., Leese, F., Piontek, J., Scheinert, M., Quillfeldt, P., Zimmermann, J., & Karsten, U. (2023). Big data in Antarctic sciences – current status, gaps, and future perspectives. Polarforschung, 91, 45–75. https://doi.org/10.5194/polf-91-45-2023
  12. Guggisberg, S. (2024). Rights of nature and non-use of nature for environmental protection in Antarctica. The Polar Journal, 14(2), 446–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2024.2414645
  13. Haward, M. (2020). Southern Ocean fisheries. In K. N. Scott, & D. L. Vanderzwaag (Eds.), Research handbook of polar law. Edward Elgar.
  14. Hemmings, A. D. (2012). Considerable values in Antarctica. The Polar Journal, 2(1), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2012.679565
  15. Hughes, K. A., Gray, A. D., & Ager, B. J. (2024). Attainment of consultative status by parties to the Antarctic Treaty: Past, present and future. The Polar Journal, 14(2), 560–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2024.2414642
  16. Jang, D., Doh, S., & Choi, Y. (2020). Networks of international co-authorship in journal articles about Antarctic research, 1998–2015. Polar Research, 39, 3647. https://doi.org/10.33265/polar.v39.3647
  17. Ji, Q., Pang, X., & Zhao, X. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of research on Antarctica during 1993–2012. Scientometrics, 101(3), 1925–1939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1332-5
  18. Leary, D., & Jabour, J. (2024). The resilience of scientific co-operation as a foundational principle of the Antarctic Treaty. The Yearbook of Polar Law Online, 15(1), 348–381. https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_015010014
  19. Lim, Z. S., Wong, R. R., Wong, C.-Y., Zulkharnain, A., Shaharuddin, N. A., & Ahmad, S. A. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of research on diesel pollution in Antarctica and a review on remediation techniques. Applied Sciences, 11(3), 1123. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031123
  20. Mancilla, A., & Jabour, J. A. (2023). Turned 60, is the Antarctic Treaty System in good health? The Geographical Journal, 189(1), 2–6.
  21. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (n.d.). New Zealand Antarctic research directions and priorities. New Zealand Government. Retrieved February 11, 2025, from https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/environment/antarctica-and-thesouthern-ocean/new-zealands-antarctic-research-directionsand-priorities
  22. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). Future directions for Southern Ocean and Antarctic nearshore and coastal research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27160
  23. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66, 81–100.
  24. Rabault, J., Müller, M., Voermans, J., Brazhnikov, D., Turnbull, I., Marchenko, A., Biuw, M., Nose, T., Waseda, T., Johansson, M., Breivik, Ø., Sutherland, G., Hole, L. R., Johnson, M., Jensen, A., Gundersen, O., Kristoffersen, Y., Babanin, A., Tedesco, P., … & Mahoney, A. R. (2023). A dataset of direct observations of sea ice drift and waves in ice. Scientific Data, 10(1), 251. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02160-9
  25. Sampaio, D. P. (2019). The Antarctic exception: how science and environmental protection provided alternative authority deployment and territoriality in Antarctica. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, 11(2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2019.1589899
  26. Scully, T. (2011). The development of the Antarctic Treaty System. In P. A. Berkman, M. A. Lang, D. W. H. Walton, & O. R. Young (Eds.), Science Diplomacy: Antarctica, Science and the Governance of International Spaces. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.9781935623069.29
  27. Seroussi, H., Pelle, T., Lipscomb, W. H., Abe-Ouchi, A., Albrecht, T., Alvarez-Solas, J., Asay-Davis, X., Barre, J.-B., Berends, C. J., Bernales, J., Blasco, J., Caillet, J., Chandler, D. M., Coulon, V., Cullather, R., Dumas, C., Galton-Fenzi, B. K., Garbe, J., Gillet-Chaulet, F., & Zwinger, T. (2024). Evolution of the Antarctic Ice Sheet over the next three centuries from an ISMIP6 model ensemble. Earth’s Future, 12(9), e2024EF004561. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF004561
  28. Terauds, A., Lee, J. R., Wauchope, H. S., Raymond, B., Bergstrom, D., Convey, P., Mason, C., Patterson, C. R., Robinson, Sh. A., Van de Putte, A., Watts, D., & Chown, S. L. (2025). The biodiversity of ice-free Antarctica database [Data paper]. Ecology, 106(1), e70000. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.70000
  29. Wood-Donnelly, C., & Gehrke, C. (2024, October 17). Science diplomacy challenges at the poles. Science & Diplomacy. https://doi.org/10.1126/scidip.adt9924
  30. Yu, A., Shi, H., Wang, Y., Yang, J., Gao, C., & Lu, Y. (2023). A bibliometric and visualized analysis of remote sensing methods for glacier mass balance research. Remote Sensing, 15(5), 1425. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15051425
  31. Zhang, Y., Zou, C., Peng, C., Lan, X., & Zhang, H. (2023). Geophysics in Antarctic research: A bibliometric analysis. Remote Sensing, 15(16), 3928. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15163928