## 1 Introduction
[PERSON]'s [7] cross-disciplinary study further supports this view, finding that the size of the economy, rather than population size, consistently predicted scientific productivity across various fields. This suggests that a country's ability to invest in research and maintain strong institutions may be more important than its population size in determining scientific output. Research excellence, often measured by indicators such as Nobel Prizes or highly cited papers, exhibits patterns that diverge somewhat from those of overall scientific productivity. While economic factors play a role, excellence in research appears to be more strongly associated with other variables. [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [12] identified scientific activity, measured by publication output and research expenditure, as the primary predictor of Nobel awards. This indicates that sustained investment in scientific infrastructure and consistent research output are crucial for achieving the highest levels of scientific recognition. However, [PERSON] et al. [9] found that when controlling for societal factors, the traditional economic indicators like Gross National Income and research and development expenditure did not significantly predict scientific excellence as measured by their High-Quality Science Index. Instead, factors such as governance quality and historical context emerged as more substantial predictors. This aligns with [PERSON] and [PERSON]'s [3] assertion that the efficiency of a country's research system is particularly important for producing high-impact research. Institutional prestige also appears to play a significant role in fostering research excellence. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [13] emphasized the importance of university prestige in scientific productivity, while [PERSON] and [PERSON] [5] found a strong correlation between the number of top-ranked universities in a country and the various metrics of scientific impact, including the h-index. The literature reveals significant disciplinary variations in scientific productivity and its sensitivity to economic, political, and societal factors. These variations suggest that the drivers of scientific output and excellence may differ across research areas, necessitating tailored approaches to enhance productivity in specific fields. [PERSON]'s [7] cross-disciplinary study found that while economic factors consistently influenced productivity across all the fields, other factors showed discipline-specific effects. For instance, linguistic factors positively influenced productivity particularly in social sciences, medicine, and agricultural sciences, highlighting the varying importance of language and communication across different research areas. In the field of psychiatry, [PERSON] et al. [4] observed a dominance of high-income countries, suggesting a strong economic influence in this discipline. Similarly, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [5] found that in clinical neurology research, factors such as the number of top-ranked universities and field-specific journals were strong predictors of productivity, emphasizing the importance of specialized infrastructure and publishing opportunities in this area. Environmental sciences and ecology showed sensitivity to different factors, as reported by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [11]. The countries with higher Environmental Performance Index scores and education expenditure demonstrated increased scientific productivity in these fields, showing that policy priorities and educational investment play a crucial role in environmentally focused research. In dermatology, [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [6] found that factors such as GDP, population, and language influenced both productivity and impact. This indicates that in some medical specialties, a combination of economic resources, demographic factors, and linguistic considerations may shape research output. The relationship between research output and economic strength is reciprocal.