During the last two decades, India has emerged as a major knowledge producer in the world, however different reports put it at different ranks, varying from 3^rd to 9^th places. The recent commissioned study reports of Department of Science and Technology (DST) done by Elsevier and Clarivate Analytics, rank India at 5^th and 9^th places, respectively. On the other hand, an independent report by National Science Foundation (NSF) of United States (US), ranks India at 3^rd place on research output in Science and Engineering area. Interestingly, both, the Elsevier and the NSF reports use Scopus data, and yet surprisingly their outcomes are different. This article, therefore, attempts to investigate as to how the use of same database can still produce different outcomes, due to differences in methodological approaches. The publication counting method used and the subject selection approach are the two main exogenous factors identified to cause these variations. The implications of the analytical outcomes are discussed with special focus on policy perspectives.

中文翻译：

---

印度在科学研究中的排名和全球份额：出版物计数方法和主题选择如何改变结果？

在过去的二十年里，印度已成为世界上主要的知识生产国，但不同的报告把它放在不同的等级，不同的3^次到9^米的地方。最近由Elsevier和Clarivate Analytics完成的科学技术部（DST）委托研究报告将印度分别排在^第5^位和^第9^位。另一方面，美国国家科学基金会（NSF）的独立报告将印度排在^第三位放在科学和工程领域的研究成果上。有趣的是，Elsevier和NSF报告均使用Scopus数据，但令人惊讶的是它们的结果有所不同。因此，本文试图研究由于方法论上的差异，如何使用同一数据库仍然可以产生不同的结果。所使用的出版物计数方法和主题选择方法是确定导致这些差异的两个主要外生因素。分析结果的含义在讨论中特别侧重于政策角度。