No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Regional development and interregional collaboration in the growth of nanotechnology research in China
Abstract
China is becoming a leading nation in terms of its share of the world’s publications in the emerging nanotechnology domain.
This paper demonstrates that the international rise of China’s position in nanotechnology has been underwritten by the emergence
of a series of regional hubs of nanotechnology R&D activity within the country. We develop a unique database of Chinese nanotechnology
articles covering the period 1990 to mid-2006 to identify the regional distribution of nanotechnology research in China. To
build this database, a new approach was developed to clean and standardize the geographical allocation of Chinese publication
records. We then analyze the data to understand the regional development of nanotechnology research in China over our study
period and to map interregional and international research collaboration linkages. We find that the geographical distribution
of China’s domestic nanotechnology research is characterized by regional imbalance, with most of the leading regions located
in eastern China, including not only Beijing and Shanghai but also a series of other new regional hubs. There is much less
development of nanotechnology research in central and western China. Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong are among the leading
Chinese regions for international nanotechnology research collaboration. Other Chinese nanotechnology regions are less focused
on international collaboration, although they have developed domestic interregional collaborations. Although new regional
research hubs have emerged in the nanotechnology domain, the paper notes that their concentration in eastern China reinforces
existing imbalances in science and technology capabilities in China, and in turn this may further reinforce the dominant position
of eastern China in the commercialization of new technologies such as nanotechnology.
... In addition to proximity, geographic diversity is an important factor for countries with less technology absorptive capacity (emerging countries) seeking to improve their technological innovation performance (Sun & Cao, 2015;Li et al., 2021a;Herron et al., 2016;Zhang & Tang, 2018;Elia et al., 2020). In nanotechnology, leading regions with higher capacity and number of publications/patents were more focused on international collaborations than developing regions (Tang & Shapira, 2011a, 2011b. Since there is a significant heterogeneity in the process of inter-regional innovation development, less-developed countries prefer more advanced countries as partners in scientific collaborations to improve their own capacity (Berman et al., 2020;Choi, 2012;Wagner et al, 2001). ...
... Another aspect that contributes to technology specialization is R&D collaboration among agents and regions. We have seen in the literature that Chinese international research collaborations have significantly increased in several high-technology fields such as nanotechnology (Herron et al., 2016;Scarazzati & Wang, 2019;Tang & Shapira, 2011a, 2011b, nano-biopharmaceutical technology (Zhang & Tang, 2018), and renewable energy technology (Li et al., 2020). In addition, there has been increase in research collaborations between emerging countries and advanced countries, as well as collaboration between China and the US in particular (Meyer & Persson, 1998;Tang & Shapira, 2011a, 2011b. ...
... We have seen in the literature that Chinese international research collaborations have significantly increased in several high-technology fields such as nanotechnology (Herron et al., 2016;Scarazzati & Wang, 2019;Tang & Shapira, 2011a, 2011b, nano-biopharmaceutical technology (Zhang & Tang, 2018), and renewable energy technology (Li et al., 2020). In addition, there has been increase in research collaborations between emerging countries and advanced countries, as well as collaboration between China and the US in particular (Meyer & Persson, 1998;Tang & Shapira, 2011a, 2011b. However, this observation sharply contrasts with the statement (Adams, 2013) that emerging countries, such as China, India, Brazil, Poland, have greatly increased their domestic research collaborations, and that about 75% of publications are persistently created through domestic collaborations. ...
This paper addresses knowledge production patterns in the research and development of quantum technologies, perhaps one of the most promising advances in modern times. Using a publication data and innovation system framework, this paper investigates and compares the knowledge production patterns of China and the US in quantum technology. Empirical evidence suggests that China’s scientific knowledge production focuses relatively more on domestic research collaboration, and ‘communication’ technology, and core-periphery collaboration partners, while US knowledge production focuses on both domestic and international collaboration, and specializes more in ‘computing’ technology, and more collaborations with OECD countries through their institutional assets. This study contributes to understanding the different knowledge production patterns of China and the US in quantum technology, with implications for other countries. Several implications and a future research agenda are discussed.
... In addition, several bibliometric studies have evaluated the research performance of China's international collaboration in terms of coauthored publications from bilateral [14,15], interregional [16], and multilateral [6] perspectives. They have focused on a variety of research domains, but mostly on technology or natural sciences, including nanotechnology [16], physics [14], and food and agriculture [15]. ...
... In addition, several bibliometric studies have evaluated the research performance of China's international collaboration in terms of coauthored publications from bilateral [14,15], interregional [16], and multilateral [6] perspectives. They have focused on a variety of research domains, but mostly on technology or natural sciences, including nanotechnology [16], physics [14], and food and agriculture [15]. Moreover, grant data have been used to investigate international research collaboration in China, as such col- ...
... Nevertheless, a growing body of empirical literature has shown that China's scientific knowledge creation is increasingly dependent on international research collaboration, and the most frequently adopted collaborative method is coauthored publications [1,6,[9][10][11]14,16,19,23,31,36]. It has also been suggested that international authorship increases China's overall citation impact [11,27], which implies that international coauthorship has improved the international academic community's perception of Chinese publications [27]. ...
This paper examined the coauthorship patterns in Chinese researchers’ cross-border research collaboration in the social sciences based on articles and reviews indexed in the Scopus database (2010–2019). We explored the evolution of coauthorship patterns by proportion of collaboration, year, research field, country/region, and research institution; additionally, the quality/impact of the coauthored publications was examined using four levels of paper quality (Q1–4), citations per
paper, and FWCI.We found that collaboration between Chinese and international scholars is very common, and more than 40% of all papers published by Chinese scholars from 2010 to 2019 involved cross-border collaboration. The growth in collaboration was very steady over the past 10 years, increasing by an average of 20% per year. United States scholars are the most common research collaboration partners for Chinese scholars in the social sciences, followed by those in Hong Kong,
the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The field of psychology seeks the most collaboration, followed by economics and finance, business and management, and social issues. The percentage of Q1 papers increased from 36% in 2010 to 66% in 2019. Thus, in the past 10 years, Chinese scholars’ cross-border collaboration has grown extensively in terms of both quantity and impact.
... In addition, several bibliometric studies have evaluated the research performance of China's international collaboration in terms of coauthored publications from bilateral [14,15], interregional [16], and multilateral [6] perspectives. They have focused on a variety of research domains, but mostly on technology or natural sciences, including nanotechnology [16], physics [14], and food and agriculture [15]. ...
... In addition, several bibliometric studies have evaluated the research performance of China's international collaboration in terms of coauthored publications from bilateral [14,15], interregional [16], and multilateral [6] perspectives. They have focused on a variety of research domains, but mostly on technology or natural sciences, including nanotechnology [16], physics [14], and food and agriculture [15]. Moreover, grant data have been used to investigate international research collaboration in China, as such col- ...
... Nevertheless, a growing body of empirical literature has shown that China's scientific knowledge creation is increasingly dependent on international research collaboration, and the most frequently adopted collaborative method is coauthored publications [1,6,[9][10][11]14,16,19,23,31,36]. It has also been suggested that international authorship increases China's overall citation impact [11,27], which implies that international coauthorship has improved the international academic community's perception of Chinese publications [27]. ...
This paper examined the coauthorship patterns in Chinese researchers’ cross-border research collaboration in the social sciences based on articles and reviews indexed in the Scopus database (2010–2019). We explored the evolution of coauthorship patterns by proportion of collaboration, year, research field, country/region, and research institution; additionally, the quality/impact of the coauthored publications was examined using four levels of paper quality (Q1–4), citations per paper, and FWCI. We found that collaboration between Chinese and international scholars is very common, and more than 40% of all papers published by Chinese scholars from 2010 to 2019 involved cross-border collaboration. The growth in collaboration was very steady over the past 10 years, increasing by an average of 20% per year. United States scholars are the most common research collaboration partners for Chinese scholars in the social sciences, followed by those in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The field of psychology seeks the most collaboration, followed by economics and finance, business and management, and social issues. The percentage of Q1 papers increased from 36% in 2010 to 66% in 2019. Thus, in the past 10 years, Chinese scholars’ cross-border collaboration has grown extensively in terms of both quantity and impact.
... In addition, several bibliometric studies have evaluated the research performance of China's international collaboration in terms of coauthored publications from bilateral [14,15], interregional [16], and multilateral [6] perspectives. They have focused on a variety of research domains, but mostly on technology or natural sciences, including nanotechnology [16], physics [14], and food and agriculture [15]. ...
... In addition, several bibliometric studies have evaluated the research performance of China's international collaboration in terms of coauthored publications from bilateral [14,15], interregional [16], and multilateral [6] perspectives. They have focused on a variety of research domains, but mostly on technology or natural sciences, including nanotechnology [16], physics [14], and food and agriculture [15]. Moreover, grant data have been used to investigate international research collaboration in China, as such col- ...
... Nevertheless, a growing body of empirical literature has shown that China's scientific knowledge creation is increasingly dependent on international research collaboration, and the most frequently adopted collaborative method is coauthored publications [1,6,[9][10][11]14,16,19,23,31,36]. It has also been suggested that international authorship increases China's overall citation impact [11,27], which implies that international coauthorship has improved the international academic community's perception of Chinese publications [27]. ...
This paper examined the coauthorship patterns in Chinese researchers’ cross-border research collaboration in the social sciences based on articles and reviews indexed in the Scopus database (2010–2019). We explored the evolution of coauthorship patterns by proportion of collaboration, year, research field, country/region, and research institution; additionally, the quality/impact of the coauthored publications was examined using four levels of paper quality (Q1–4), citations per paper, and FWCI. We found that collaboration between Chinese and international scholars is very common, and more than 40% of all papers published by Chinese scholars from 2010 to 2019 involved cross-border collaboration. The growth in collaboration was very steady over the past 10 years, increasing by an average of 20% per year. United States scholars are the most common research collaboration partners for Chinese scholars in the social sciences, followed by those in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The field of psychology seeks the most collaboration, followed by economics and finance, business and management, and social issues. The percentage of Q1 papers increased from 36% in 2010 to 66% in 2019. Thus, in the past 10 years, Chinese scholars’ cross-border collaboration has grown extensively in terms of both quantity and impact.
... Previous studies suggest that institutional constraints have an impact on science indicators, for example, international collaboration (Wagner and Leydesdorff 2005). In order to further elucidate this, we employ a country-report framework of bibliometric analysis of nanotechnology performance: main actors (institutional and individual), publication outlets, co-authorship patterns, quality of research outputs, geography of research, and the structure of international collaboration (Glanzel 1996;Moed et al. 1995;Tang and Shapira 2011). Structural changes over time are important for tracing sustained systemic features as well as institutional rigidities. ...
... Among the internationally collaborated publications (ICP), the share of European countries (Western, Central and Eastern Europe) is the highest-about 75 %- Europe has remained the largest collaboration partner of Russia throughout the post-Soviet period. The United States has been actively expanding its collaboration links with the developing countries and became China's largest collaboration partner in nanotechnology (Shapira and Wang 2010;Tang and Shapira 2011). With regard to this trend, the nature of Russia-US collaboration patterns has fluctuated between 18 and 22 % share in the total ICP output (Fig. 5). ...
... RAS reform was controversial and not welcomed by the Academy community. There were concerns that the pace of research would be hindered by the mismanagement of academic property by non-professionals, and also because the reforms did not address other pressing problems within RAS (Clark 2013;Stishov 2013;Yablokov 2014). Although academicians are reluctant to enact their new 'science advisory' functions and join in with the restructuring of the institutes, RAS reform does not seem to threaten its monopoly on science (Nature 2013). ...
In this paper, we study the influence of path dependencies on the development of an emerging technology in a transitional economy. Our focus is the development of nanotechnology in Russia in the period between 1990 and 2012. By examining outputs, publication paths and collaboration patterns, we identify a series of factors that help to explain Russia’s limited success in leveraging its ambitious national nanotechnology initiative. The analysis highlights four path-dependent tendencies of Russian nanotechnology research: publication pathways and the gatekeeping role of the Russian Academy of Sciences; increasing geographical and institutional centralisation of nanotechnology research; limited institutional diffusion; and patterns associated with the internationalisation of Russian research. We discuss policy implications related to path dependence, nanotechnology research in Russia and to the broader reform of the Russian science system.
... At the country level, NST studies have been appraised in South Africa (Pouris, 2007), Brazil (Kay and Shapira, 2011), China (Guan and Ma, 2007;Tang and Shapira, 2011a), Venezuela (López Cadenas et al., 2011), Russia (Terekhov, 2012), Pakistan (Bajwa and Yaldram, 2012), and Australia (Gorjiara and Baldock, 2014). All these works aimed to assess the impact of NST research and the evolution of national policies by analyzing volume, citation analysis, and patterns of collaboration. ...
... Austria (61.71%), Switzerland (61.21%), and Belgium (60.84%) publish internationally above 60%, yet have the lowest leadership rates in all output (58.83, 60.51, and 61.22%, respectively), and accumulate international leading papers higher than 40% (46.44, 40.97, and 41.07%, respectively) representing a stronger role than non-collaborative ones (30.77, 24.24, and 28.54%, respectively). The high internationalization for Hong Kong has been documented previously, attributed to its collaborations with Chinese institutions (Tang and Shapira, 2011a). ...
This paper presents a comparative benchmarking of scientometric indicators to characterize the patterns of publication and research performance at the country level, in a specific field (nanoscience and nanotechnology) during the period 2003–2013. The aim was to assess how decisive collaboration may be in attaining a sound level of scientific performance, and how important leadership is for publication. To this end, we used a new methodological approach that contributes to the debate about scientific autonomy or dependency of countries in their scientific performance, and which may serve as an aid in decision-making with regard to research management. The results reveal that in terms of output, USA and China are the main producers; and due to the huge increase in their publications, Iran, India, and Australia can be considered emerging countries. The results highlight USA, Ireland, and Singapore as the countries with the highest levels of normalized citation impact, scientific excellence, and good management of leadership, all of which suggest strong scientific development and scientific autonomy. Also worth mentioning is the high visibility and scientific consolidation of China and Australia, despite the meager growth of their output. Moreover, the performance results indicate that in most cases the countries whose pattern of publication is more international tend to have greater visibility. Yet, a high degree of leadership does not always translate as a high performance level; the contrary is often true. Due to the limitations of the sample and characteristics of the field, we propose that future studies evaluate the generation of new knowledge in this field and refine the approach presented here, so as to better measure scientific performance.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frma.2016.00002
... Web of Science categorization is adopted to depict the main research areas of China's social science research. We follow the geographic location method introduced by Tang and Shapira (2011) to allocate all of China's SSCI publications to its 33 provincial regions: 22 provinces, 4 municipalities, 5 autonomous regions, and 2 special administrative regions. 4 After several rounds of thorough cleaning, we finalized 51,264 of China's SSCI publications for analysis in the examination period of 1978 to 2013. 5 ...
... We examined the concentration of China's social science research at both regional and institutional levels. Following Tang and Shapira (2011), the regions discussed here are defined by provincial administrative boundaries. Table 1 identifies the key regional players of China's SSCI publications. ...
... In the future, we should measure the research leadership from an individual point of view. Third, we leverage WOS to perform data collection, but only WOS data sources may not have enough coverage of publications in pharmaceutical sciences or ISLS (Tang & Shapira, 2011). We may underestimate the absolute counts of publications in pharmaceutical sciences and ISLS. ...
Research collaborations, especially long-distance and international collaborations, have become increasingly prevalent worldwide. Recent studies highlighted the significant role of research leadership in collaborations. However, existing measures of the research leadership do not take into account the intensity of leadership in the co-authorship network. More importantly, the spatial features, which influence the collaboration patterns and research outcomes, have not been incorporated in measuring the research leadership. To fill the gap, we construct an institution-level weighted co-authorship network that integrates two types of weight on the edges: the intensity of collaborations and the spatial score (the geographical distance adjusted by the cross-linguistic-border nature). Based on this network, we propose a novel metric, namely the spatial research leadership rank, to identify the leading institutions while considering both the collaboration intensity and the spatial features. The leadership of an institution is measured by the following three criteria: (a) the institution frequently plays the corresponding rule in papers with other institutions; (b) the institution frequently plays the corresponding rule in longer distance and even cross-linguistic-border collaborations; (c) the participating institutions led by the institution have high leadership status themselves. Harnessing a dataset of 323,146 journal publications in pharmaceutical sciences during 2010-2018, we perform a comprehensive analysis of the geographical distribution and dynamic patterns of research leadership flows at the institution level. The results demonstrate that the SpatialLeaderRank outperforms baseline metrics in predicting the scholarly impact of institutions. And the result remains robust in the field of Information Science and Library Science.
Supplementary information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-021-03943-w.
... Bibliometric studies have gained a lot of attention from academic researchers over the years. However, most of the bibliometric studies carried out in the literature has been in the field of nano-science (Tang and Shapira [45]), knowledge management (Akhavan et al. [1]), science and technology (Huang et al. [26]), etc. ...
This paper gives insights into recent research developments in the field of digital solutions for people with aphasia and tries to analyse its impact on their rehabilitation. A bibliometric research approach is used for data collection. Relevant studies were extracted from seven major academic databases from years 2000 to 2019 inclusive. The systematic process resulted in 986 studies. The average growth in this field is 4%, which is less compared to other research areas. However, the average citations per paper is 7.27, which represents a medium level of publication quality. Scopus and Web of Science are leading databases for the number of studies (379 and 264) and quality of publications (P-Index: 49.26 and 32.85), respectively. The USA, with 42% of publications, leads this research field, followed by the UK with 15%. Both countries have national aphasia strategies in place through charities (not government level strategies), which potentially contributed to their research leadership. The results show that recent advances in digital solutions have the potential to support people with aphasia. However, further work is needed at both academic and government levels to deliver more research contributions and funding for the rehabilitation of people with aphasia.
... This study has several limitations. There may be important differences in collaboration patterns within regions in large countries (Sun & Cao, 2015;Tang & Shapira, 2010) that will not be reflected. The use of Scopus is also a limitation because of its dominance by Englishlanguage sources. ...
Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008–2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two‐thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.
... This study has several limitations. There may be important differences in collaboration patterns within regions in large countries (Sun & Cao, 2015;Tang & Shapira, 2010) that will not be reflected. The use of Scopus is also a limitation because of its dominance by Englishlanguage sources. ...
Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalised citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the ten countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008-2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two thirds more authors per article than the UK (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the UK (27%). Whilst increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.
... Not surprisingly, nanotechnology is progressing rapidly, and international collaborations have been found to play a significant role in its development (Zheng et al. 2014). Over the past decades, China significantly invested in nanotechnology, and it rapidly became one of the leading nations for what concerns the share of the world's publication on nanotechnology (Tang and Shapira 2011b;Zhou and Leydesdorff 2006). In 2004, China's world share of nanorelated publications − 8.34%-was higher than the country's average world share of publications − 6.52%- (Zhou and Leydesdorff 2006). ...
The pattern and impact of scientific collaborations depends on a country’s or region’s development stage. Prior to promoting scientific collaborations, it is crucial to understand what types of collaboration are more beneficial. By taking the stage of regional scientific development into consideration, this paper investigates the effect of various collaborations on regional scientific output. Our results highlight the differences between collaboration effects across regions at various capability levels. Scientifically weak regions benefit from more concentrated collaboration, in particular with advanced domestic regions. However, scientifically strong regions can benefit from a centrally located position in a broader collaboration network. Findings from this analysis indicate that international collaborations might not be beneficial a priori. Whether or not one region benefits from international collaborations depends on this region’s local capacity. Being embedded in a broad network structure can help increase one region’s publication output. However, such benefit is limited only to regions that have relatively higher research capacity.
... Recently the debate about research on scientific collaboration has changed its focus into a discussion about the effect that scientific cooperation has on the impact of published research. A body of research exists on the study of the influence that collaboration has on impact (Katz and Hicks 1997;Katz and Martin 1997;Kliegl and Bates 2010;Tang and Shapira 2010;Zhai et al. 2014). Recently, Avkiran (1997), Elena Luna-Morales (2012), Glänzel (2002), González-Teruel et al. (2015), Rousseau (2000), Rousseau and Ding (2015) and van Raan (1998) published research about the existence or absence of a relationship between collaboration and the impact of articles. ...
The focus of this paper is the question “Can scale-invariant properties of collaborative research activities of a complex innovation system be quantified, modeled and used to inform decision makers about the effect that cooperation has on the impact of published peer-reviewed research?” Over the past few decades cooperative research activities have been extensively studied. Presently, encouragement and support for collaborative research and training is a cornerstone of many innovation policies and programs. Concurrently, the study of complex systems has produced tools and techniques that can be applied to the study of innovation systems. They have been shown to be complex systems with scale-invariant properties that can be measured and modeled providing novel insights to decision makers. An important factor contributing to the emergence of scale-invariant properties is the inseparable tension between competitive and cooperative activities among actors within a complex system. Peer-reviewed papers index in the 1990–2010 Web of Science and cita-tions to these papers are used as a partial measure of size and impact, respectively. Docu-ments are classified into 14 natural, health and applied sciences fields. Numbers of authors and country information from each paper are used to classify documents into various types of cooperation. Scale-invariant correlations between impact and sizes where prepared to provide measures and models used to explore the effects of cooperation types. It is shown that collaborative research tends to have greater impact and for a longer period of time that non-collaborative research. Cooperation in the more applied fields show higher growth of impact when compared to the growth of their sizes than cooperation in fields closer to the basic or ‘blue sky’ end of the R&D spectrum. Cooperation in a complex innovation system can have significant effects on the relative growth of impact with respect to growth of size and it enhances the sustainability of the Matthew Effect over time. Cooperative activities appear to sustain self-organization in a complex innovation system.
... Recently the debate about research on scientific collaboration has changed its focus into a discussion about the effect that scientific cooperation has on the impact of published research. A body of research exists on the study of the influence that collaboration has on impact (Katz and Hicks 1997;Katz and Martin 1997;Kliegl and Bates 2010;Tang and Shapira 2010;Zhai et al. 2014). Recently, Avkiran (1997), Elena Luna-Morales (2012), Glänzel (2002), González-Teruel et al. (2015), Rousseau (2000), Rousseau and Ding (2015) and van Raan (1998) published research about the existence or absence of a relationship between collaboration and the impact of articles. ...
The focus of this paper is the question “Can scale-invariant properties of collaborative research activities of a complex innovation system be quantified, modeled and used to inform decision makers about the effect that cooperation has on the impact of published peer-reviewed research?” Over the past few decades cooperative research activities have been extensively studied. Presently, encouragement and support for collaborative research and training is a cornerstone of many innovation policies and programs. Concurrently, the study of complex systems has produced tools and techniques that can be applied to the study of innovation systems. They have been shown to be complex systems with scale-invariant properties that can be measured and modeled providing novel insights to decision makers. An important factor contributing to the emergence of scale-invariant properties is the inseparable tension between competitive and cooperative activities among actors within a complex system. Peer-reviewed papers index in the 1990–2010 Web of Science and citations to these papers are used as a partial measure of size and impact, respectively. Documents are classified into 14 natural, health and applied sciences fields. Numbers of authors and country information from each paper are used to classify documents into various types of cooperation. Scale-invariant correlations between impact and sizes where prepared to provide measures and models used to explore the effects of cooperation types. It is shown that collaborative research tends to have greater impact and for a longer period of time that non-collaborative research. Cooperation in the more applied fields show higher growth of impact when compared to the growth of their sizes than cooperation in fields closer to the basic or ‘blue sky’ end of the R&D spectrum. Cooperation in a complex innovation system can have significant effects on the relative growth of impact with respect to growth of size and it enhances the sustainability of the Matthew Effect over time. Cooperative activities appear to sustain self-organization in a complex innovation system.
... A study of the number of publications in nanotechnology, in the period between 1990 and 2006, identified the regions with higher activity resulting from international cooperation in Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong (Tang & Shapira, 2011). The paper concludes that the rapid progress of nanotechnology in China is explained by the emergence of regional hubs of R&D with a high level of international cooperation. ...
The general purpose of this paper is to identify opportunities for and to measure existing collaboration on research and development between institutions from the countries of Asia and Latin America in FEALAC's framework, in the fields of biotechnology and nanotechnology and their convergence. The methodological approach includes scientific and technological surveillance and research seeking to identify both the R&D and innovation capacities of the countries as well as the degree of international cooperation between countries of the two regions; case studies and a study of the governance framework of international collaboration in R&D about issues considered global challenges. The study has three main findings. First, nanotechnology, biotechnology and their convergence contribute to solving the problem of contamination by heavy metals affecting most of the countries that are part of FEALAC and to address problems arising from the accelerated rate of energy consumption, which also contributes to environmental damage. In this scenario, important business opportunities arise from the adaptation and development of bio-refinery technologies. Second, the scientific relationship between FEALAC countries, mainly between Asian and Latin American countries, is weak as can be seen in research for articles and patents. But there is plenty of room and potential for improvement. Third, current and upcoming joint R&D programs and projects should be linked both to existing governance structures and to new ones that serve as experiments of STI public policy regarding innovative management of intellectual property and capacity building. Practical implications are included in lessons learned and a set of recommendations involving a couple of proposals. One proposal calls for research and innovation in promising fields for international cooperation. Another proposal creates mechanisms in the governance framework for sharing knowledge, capacity building, and funding.
... Usually bibliometric analysis is used to measure research collaboration (such as number of publications, number of citations and bibliographic coupling) in order to provide a genral overview of a scientific research field. There are various sorts of bibliometric analysis to investigate collaboration activities (Chang and Huang 2012;Franceschet 2010;Gazni 2012;Larivière, Gingras, and Archambault 2006) on country distribution (Tang 2011), collaboration pattern analysis (Lee et al. 2012) and level of interdiciplinarity (Chang and Huang 2012). ...
The present study is the first of its kind as it attempts to ascertain the current status of library and information science (LIS) research from the Chinese perspective, by focusing on English research contributions by Chinese LIS scholars. Leading contributors; individual (author) contributors; institutional contributors, and research collaborations were examined. The review comprises 564 articles published in international journals indexed by Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) from 2012-2013. Co-authorship analysis and co-citation analysis were used to draw the results. The results revealed two major findings; first, the Chinese research community is engaged in focusing on cross-national collaboration to establish their existence in international literature and establish colleague relationship with foreigner researchers. USA, UK, and Belgium are the primary counterparts of international collaborative papers. Chinese institutions have eminent professors in the LIS field who incorporate international-oriented scholarly researches (48.04%) around the globe. Secondly, Chinese researchers have enough knowledge to conduct research, both as single authors (26.24%) and through internal academic collaboration between senior and junior researchers. The Chinese LIS research community has not paid much attention to conducting research on inter-institutional level (7.20%) and on inter-regional level (6.73%). Nevertheless, Wuhan University, City University Hong Kong, and Chinese Academy of Sciences have emerged as the leading institutions in producing LIS publications. Chinese immigrant scholars also have contributed to LIS China’s international scientific collaboration. It is a worthwhile and unique study as it examines the collaboration trends networks analysis of international publications by Chinese scholars.
... Although a wide range of disciplines have been studied (Tang and Shapira 2011;Uddin et al., 2012), little attention has been paid to the scholarly publishing in the field of information systems. We carried out a detailed analysis of the IS field in the last twenty years so as to know the productivity patterns, trends of the published research and status of international collaboration in this field. ...
A baseline assessment research output is beneficial for policy decision makers to promote research. This paper presents a co-authorship network-based method to quantify and describe the scholarly publishing of a certain research field. To make our analysis more precise, we firstly generalized the measures used in previous literatures into formulas and analyzed the significance of the measures. We then classified our study into overall, individual, institutional and international levels to make our analysis clearer and more reasonable. Finally, we conduct a research of the structure, characteristics and development trend of coauthorship network based on publication output in top three journals in the field of information systems from 1993 to 2012. By synthetical analysis, our research results are helpful to know the productivity patterns, trends of the published research and status of international collaboration in this field.
... Usually bibliometric analysis is used to measure research collaboration (such as number of publications, number of citations and bibliographic coupling) in order to provide a genral overview of a scientific research field. There are various sorts of bibliometric analysis to investigate collaboration activities (Chang and Huang 2012;Franceschet 2010;Gazni 2012;Larivière, Gingras, and Archambault 2006) on country distribution (Tang 2011), collaboration pattern analysis (Lee et al. 2012) and level of interdiciplinarity (Chang and Huang 2012). ...
The present study is the first of its kind as it attempts to ascertain the current status of library and information science (LIS) research from the Chinese perspective, by focusing on English research contributions by Chinese LIS scholars. Leading contributors; individual (author) contributors; institutional contributors, and research collaborations were examined. The review comprises 564 articles published in international journals indexed by Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) from 2012-2013. Co-authorship analysis and co-citation analysis were used to draw the results. The results revealed two major findings; first, the Chinese research community is engaged in focusing on cross-national collaboration to establish their existence in international literature and establish colleague relationship with foreigner researchers. USA, UK, and Belgium are the primary counterparts of international collaborative papers. Chinese institutions have eminent professors in the LIS field who incorporate international-oriented scholarly researches (48.04%) around the globe. Secondly, Chinese researchers have enough knowledge to conduct research, both as single authors (26.24%) and through internal academic collaboration between senior and junior researchers. The Chinese LIS research community has not paid much attention to conducting research on inter-institutional level (7.20%) and on inter-regional level (6.73%). Nevertheless, Wuhan University, City University Hong Kong, and Chinese Academy of Sciences have emerged as the leading institutions in producing LIS publications. Chinese immigrant scholars also have contributed to LIS China’s international scientific collaboration. It is a worthwhile and unique study as it examines the collaboration trends networks analysis of international publications by Chinese scholars
... Take nanotechnology as an example. Nanotechnology is a fundamental technology that is causing revolutions in many industries and has attracted considerable attention (Guan and Liu 2014;Liu et al. 2009;Tang and Shapira 2011;Wang and Guan 2010;Zheng et al. 2014). As an emerging and rapidly developing field with a multidisciplinary nature, nanotechnology has a close relationship with basic research, and researchers in this field may find it easier to publish and patent their research achievements than those in other fields, which can promote the renewal of knowledge (Narin 1994;Wang and Guan 2010). ...
Promoting knowledge diffusion and reducing the delay between scientific research and technology patents is important to achieve success in the highly competitive global environment. This paper studies the time delay between scientific research and technology patents, and focuses on the key components of time in the promotion of knowledge transformation. Based on United States Patent and Trademark Office patent data, we apply periodical citation distribution models to the patent process. The results show that our transfer function model is better than others, and is suitable for calculating the delay between basic scientific research activities and technology patents.
... In the mid-2000s, scholars looking at global nanotechnology trends noticed the high level of China's R&D investments (Lux Research, 2008), or its contribution to scientific publications (Kostoff et al., 2007;Larédo et al., 2010;Miyazaki and Islam, 2007;Zucker and Darby, 2005), which led to dedicated research on the country (Guan and Ma, 2007;Tang and Shapira, 2011;. Since then, a myriad of innovation studies or scientometric research, based on different samples of scientific publications, converge to indicate a surge in the number of Chinese scientific publications. ...
Among the 500 world’s largest firms, one out of five is Chinese. In 2014, 94 Chinese firms were among the world leaders in R&D. Since 2016, China is the first acquirer of foreign firms, and is now targeting high-technology firms.These elements raise questions about the technological positioning of Chinese firms. Studying this topic requires looking at their conditions of emergence. We can look at China’s development under the perspective of the technological catch-up model (Kim, 1997). China has gone through three phases: a phase of acquisition of foreign technology following the country’s opening in 1978, a period of technological assimilation and production of increasingly complex products, and a period of technological integration characterized by technological improvement and the reconfiguration of existing technologies.The hypothesis we make is that firms are now in the last phase of catch-up, and have entered a period of transition to technology leadership. This leads to two questions. What is China’s innovation today? This topic broadly refers to innovation by emerging countries. How far are Chinese firms to reach the technological frontier?We observe the transition through the way major Chinese firms engage into research. The integration of emerging technologies into their research strategies reflect dynamics of technological learning which, if they are not yet visible in the market, indicate the transition. Our results show that the trend is significant, half of large firms (48 percent) engages in nanotechnology. This proportion reflects that Chinese firms have reached the technological frontier, which, however, does not mean they are at the frontier on other dimensions, such as the organizational dimension. We also show that there are several modalities of commitment into research. While some large Chinese firms do research by adopting a model similar to that of American or European firms, other dynamics are at work, which reflects in particular their historical legacy, and the impact of their localization. To obtain these results, we have built a unique database of 325 large industrial enterprises, and have looked at their patenting activities in nanotechnology, directly or through their subsidiaries, based on the exploitation of sources in English and Chinese.
... The advantage of the United States is significant and viable in both indicators in relation to the rest of the countries in the group. The improvement of China's position in nanotechnology has been underwritten by the emergence of a series of regional centers of nanotechnology R&D activity (Tang & Shapira, 2011, p. 313). The rapid growth of Chinese nanotechnology research is mainly internally driven. ...
Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies
(Management, Journal for Theory and Practice Management)
... Most work done on bibliometric data analysis can be found in nanoscience and nanotechnology. [11][12][13][14] To the best of our knowledge, a bibliometric study focusing on AT for people with dementia is not available in the current literature. ...
Background:
This study presents an overview of recent research activities in assistive technology (AT) for people with dementia. Bibliometric studies are used to explore breadth and depth of different research areas, yet this method has not yet been fully utilised in AT research for people with dementia.
Methods:
The bibliometric method was used for collecting studies related to AT. Based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, the AT studies with a focus on people with dementia are considered.
Study scope:
The study is based on factors such as number of publications, citations per paper, collaborative research output, P-Index, major research and application areas and national dementia strategies.
Data collection:
Data were collected from 2000 to 2014 in AT research. The top 10 countries are selected based on their research outputs.
Results:
USA emerged as the leading contributor with 503 publications and an annual growth rate of 16%, followed by UK with 399 publications and growth rate of 22%. Germany with 101 publications is on the 6th place, but it has a higher citation rate 16.43% as compared to USA (13.34%). Although all 10 countries show good collaborative research output, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands emerge as top collaborative research contributors with high percentages (84%, 84% and 79%). All the top 10 countries, except Canada, Germany and Spain, have national dementia strategies in place.
Conclusion:
The overall analysis shows that USA and UK are working extensively in AT research for people with dementia. Both these countries also have well established national dementia strategies.
... In the past few years, the academic debate of research on scientific collaboration has turned into a discussion about the effect that collaboration has on the impact of research papers. The trend of studying the influence of collaboration on the impact of articles has been widely supported (Katz & Hicks, 1997;Katz & Martin, 1997;Kliegl & Bates, 2010;Tang & Shapira, 2010;Zhai, Yan, Shibchurn, & Song, 2014). Recently, Avkiran (1997), Elena Luna-Morales (2012), Gl€ anzel (2002), Gonz alez-Teruel, Gonz alez-Alcaide, Barrios, and Abad-Garc ıa (2015), Rousseau (2000), Rousseau and Ding (2015), and Van Raan (1998) published findings about the existence or absence of a relationship between collaboration and the impact of articles in several scientific fields. ...
The aim of this paper is to extend our knowledge about the power-law relationship between citation-based performance and coauthorship patterns in papers in the natural sciences. We analyzed 829,924 articles that received 16,490,346 citations. The number of articles published through coauthorship accounts for 89%. The citation-based performance and coauthorship patterns exhibit a power-law correlation with a scaling exponent of 1.20 ± 0.07. Citations to a subfield's research articles tended to increase 2.1.20 or 2.30 times each time it doubled the number of coauthored papers. The scaling exponent for the power-law relationship for single-authored papers was 0.85 ± 0.11. The citations to a subfield's single-authored research articles increased 2.0.85 or 1.89 times each time the research area doubled the number of single-authored papers. The Matthew Effect is stronger for coauthored papers than for single-authored. In fact, with a scaling exponent <1.0 the impact of single-authored papers exhibits a cumulative disadvantage or inverse Matthew Effect.
... The Anhui region contributed 5.6% of CAS publications, with other regions contributing less than 5%. In the nanotechnology domain, CAS has not contributed to the regionalisation of Chinese science to the same extent as other institutions in the national research system (Motoyama et al., 2014;Tang and Shapira, 2011). ...
This paper investigates interactions between institutional adaptation and the transformation of science and innovation systems by analysing change and adjustment in post-socialist science academies. Two leading examples are examined: the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). A heuristic framework of institutional change markers is applied to the analysis of nanotechnology research in both countries. We draw on bibliometric sources, interviews and secondary sources. We find that while the two Academies share a common past as the dominant research agents in their respective systems, their current positions and trajectories now differ. The nanotechnology case shows that CAS has adapted to China's modernisation, engaged in central government policy initiatives, and interacted with other research performers. CAS remains central to the Chinese research system, and has rejuvenated and expanded its resource base. RAS, on the contrary, has taken a protectionist stance: it still dominates the Russian research system and has a strong nanotechnology position, enforced by its gatekeeper control over journal publication. Nevertheless, RAS has faced difficulties in internal modernisation, leading to the external imposition of reforms and further role diminishment. The paper offers comparative insights into processes of institutional adaptation and highlights how key institutions can influence system transition.
... This approach may have limitation that our study may underestimate the research activities in non-English-speaking countries (e.g. China, Japan, and Spain) because the SCI database mainly indexes the English-language journals (Tang and Shapira 2011). Even so, SCI publications have been widely adopted in a growing body of published works (e.g. ...
How to effectively make an international comparison of the basic research capacity in a specific field is an urgent problem for a country to monitor the science and technology activities. In this paper, we develop a composite index, that is, Basic Research Competitiveness Index (BR-CI), for evaluating the countries’ basic research performance versus the world average level over time. For this purpose, the three sub-indexes, namely, Activity Index (AcI), Attractive Index (AtI) and Efficiency Index (EI), are proposed, which are respectively used to assess the countries’ research efforts, impacts, efficiency versus the world average level in a particular science field over time. The proposed indicator system can present the cross-time and cross-country comparison of research performance, which can quantify the basic research competiveness relative to the world average level, and describe the competitive landscape among countries in the world. As the first application, this paper employs the four indicators, AcI, AtI, EI and BR-CI, to measure and compare the five leading countries’ research performances in the biomass energy field. In short, the modelling and empirical study in this paper not only offers some new references for fully exploring the international competition in the basic research of biomass energy field, but also provides some new perspectives and ideas for examining the international competitiveness in the basic research field of science and technology.
... Among talents recruited into China, ethnic Chinese represent the majority. Another major barrier is the relatively lower payoff for research jobs in China, though the situation is improving and foreign researchers of non-Chinese origins have begun to show interest in working in Chinese universities, research institutions, and state-owned enterprises (Tang & Shapira, 2011;Zhao & Zhu, 2009). Visa requirements do exist but usually are not the determinant barrier. ...
... Among talents recruited into China, ethnic Chinese represent the majority. A major barrier is the relatively lower payoff for research jobs in China, though the situation is improving and foreign researchers of non-Chinese origins have begun to show interest in working in Chinese universities, research institutions, and state-owned enterprises (Tang & Shapira, 2011;Zhao & Zhu, 2009). Visa requirements do exist but they are usually not the determinant barrier. ...
... In parallel with its investment in domestic-research activities, China has increasingly integrated itself into the international-collaboration arena. Previous studies have suggested that there is a positive correlation between international collaboration, particularly Sino–U.S., and cumulative citations (Tang & Shapira, 2011b). To remove the confounding factor of collaboration beyond national borders, we add two dummy variables US_CNCOL (Sino-U.S. collaboration) and OTH- COLLAB (third-country collaboration) in the regression model. ...
... A recent study conducted by Milanez et al. (2014) applied logistic curves to analyze nano-related patent data using a dataset from Derwent Innovations Index. Meanwhile, with the advancement of computer science and software development, an increasing number of publications have used visualization software, including Google Earth (Hu et al. 2012), science overlay maps (Tang and Shapira 2011a), Ucinet (Tang and Shapira 2011b), and the like. ...
Combining both bibliometrics and citation network analysis, this research evaluates the global development of micro-electro mechanical systems (MEMS) research based on the Derwent Innovations Index database. We found that worldwide, the growth trajectory of MEMS patents demonstrates an approximate S shape, with United States, Japan, China, and Korea leading the global MEMS race. Evidenced by Derwent class codes, the technology structure of global MEMS patents remains steady over time. Yet there does exist a national competitiveness component among the top country players. The latecomer China has become the second most prolific country filing MEMS patents, but its patent quality still lags behind the global average.
... In the past few years, the academic debate of research on scientific collaboration has turned into a discussion about the effect that collaboration has on the impact of research papers. The trend of studying the influence of collaboration on the impact of articles has been widely supported (Katz & Hicks, 1997;Katz & Martin, 1997;Kliegl & Bates, 2010;Tang & Shapira, 2010;Zhai, Yan, Shibchurn, & Song, 2014). Recently, Avkiran (1997); Elena Luna-Morales (2012); Glänzel (2002); González-Teruel, González-Alcaide, Barrios, and Abad-García (2015); Rousseau (2000); Rousseau and Ding (2015); Van Raan (1998) ). ...
The aim of this paper is to extend our knowledge about the power-law
relationship between citation-based performance and collaboration patterns for
papers of the Natural Sciences domain. We analyzed 829,924 articles that
received 16,490,346 citations. The number of articles published through
collaboration account for 89%. The citation-based performance and collaboration
patterns exhibit a power-law correlation with a scaling exponent of 1.20,
SD=0.07. We found that the Matthew effect is stronger for collaborated papers
than for single-authored. This means that the citations to a field research
areas articles increase 2.30 times each time it doubles the number of
collaborative papers. The scaling exponent for the power-law relationship for
single-authored papers was 0.85, SD=0.11. The citations to a field research
area single-authored articles increase 1.89 times each time the research area
doubles the number of non-collaborative papers.
... Web of Science categorization is adopted to depict the main research areas of China's social science research. We follow the geographic location method introduced by Tang and Shapira (2011) to allocate all of China's SSCI publications to its 33 provincial regions: 22 provinces, 4 municipalities, 5 autonomous regions, and 2 special administrative regions. 5 After several rounds of thorough cleaning, we finalized 51,264 of China's SSCI publications for analysis in the examination period of 1978 to 2013. ...
The phenomenon of China's rise as an emerging scientific power has been well documented, yet the development of its social science is less explored. Utilizing up-to-date Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) publication data (1978–2013), this paper probes the patterns and dynamics of China's social science research via bibliometric analyses. Our research indicates that despite the national orientation of social science research and the linguistic obstacle of publishing for an international audience, China's publications in the SSCI dataset have been rising in terms of volume, world share, and global ranking. But China is still not yet a major player in the arena of social sciences, as is evidenced by the number of Chinese journals indexed in SSCI and the lack of Olympic players. Team research features China's international publishing in social science, but the research outputs are highly unbalanced at regional and institutional levels.
This study has the purpose of analyzing the implications of institutional policymaking in the analysis of institutional change. The analysis departs from the assumption that the analysis of institutional policymaking is a framework to design and implement institutional change. The method used is the meta cognitive-analytic-descriptive based on the conceptual-theoretical and empirical review of the literature on these issues. It is concluded that the analysis of institutional change must be supported by a framework of a policymaking development.
Les nanotechnologies constituent à l’échelle mondiale un domaine scientifique et technologique en émergence sur lequel la Chine mise pour atteindre la place à laquelle elle aspire. Les nanotechnologies visent à une miniaturisation accrue et à des modes renouvelés de conception des matériaux, susceptibles de conférer à ceux-ci de nouvelles fonctionnalités et potentialités. En termes de publications scientifiques, la Chine est devenue l’un des principaux contributeurs mondiaux avec une production scientifique qui se concentre dans dix-neuf clusters, dont deux font partie des plus grands clusters mondiaux (ils totalisent chacun plus de 10 000 publications). Toutefois, les clusters chinois, y compris les plus importants, présentent un profil atypique. La présence des entreprises y est faible ainsi que la production de brevets dans le domaine des nanotechnologies ; les publications témoignent d’une visibilité limitée dans leur taux de citation et sont très fortement concentrées sur la chimie et les sciences des matériaux. Enfin, les collaborations entre institutions sont fortement hiérarchisées, centrées autour de Pékin, Shanghai, Hong Kong et demeurent limitées avec l’extérieur.
Le système d’innovation chinois est le résultat d’une histoire qui s’inscrit dans un contexte. Il se bâtit sur les conséquences de la période maoïste et en empruntant à des systèmes extérieurs considérés comme pertinents dans leur fonctionnement et leur performance. Une série d’indicateurs permettent de mesurer la progression d’un système d’innovation chinois en devenir. La mise en œuvre de la volonté de réforme institutionnelle qu’ils traduisent s’inscrit dans la dépendance et l’interaction avec des réseaux d’influence informels qui l’accompagnent en même temps qu’ils la contraignent.
BRICS as an association of five major emerging national economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) has been expanding its international cooperation, in particular with developing countries. This process sometimes is referred as building of a BRICS Plus association. Science and technology, being a key driver of economic growth, is one of the most important area of socioeconomic development. It becomes increasingly complicated, requires expensive research infrastructure, skilled workforce, and high-tech laboratory equipment, therefore no one individual country in the world can afford a full-scale support to all areas of research and development. That is why collaboration in this area is considered a very promising activity. Following the BRICS Plus concept proposed by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in 2017, this paper presents one of the first attempts to identify key priorities to be addressed by BRICS in establishing and enhancing S&T cooperation with a number of major developing countries, primarily from Global South. Based on a set of criteria for country selection (population, economic potential, R&D sector capacities; research output; etc.), 21 countries are considered in this paper as a BRICS Plus group. A detailed analysis of publication activities of BRICS Plus countries and their international scientific collaboration based on a wide range of bibliometric indicators was applied for the identification of promising thematic areas for research collaboration between BRICS and BRICS Plus countries. A special analysis is presented for 14 science, technology, and innovation areas, which are regarded as common priorities for BRICS countries.
The concept of innovation has for a long time been considered as the drive behind the ever-changing positions and functioning of the global community. Since the beginning of twenty-first century, creative individuals and entrepreneurs have without influence declined to accept the existing products and services as being the ultimate solution to challenges the society faces. This scholarly analysis builds on the theory of disruptive innovation to categorize and analyze the impact of disruptive innovations on key sectors of an economy in terms of their impact on the strategies and commercialization from a sectorial perspective. This analysis offers insightful information in terms of disruptive innovations which can be categorized into market-driven, product-driven, and competency-driven disruptive innovations.
This study analyzes the patterns of university co-authorship networks in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area. It also examines the quality and subject distribution of co-authored articles within these networks. Social network analysis is used to outline the structure and evolution of the networks that have produced co-authored articles at universities in the Greater Bay Area from 2014 to 2018, at both regional and institutional levels. Field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) is used to analyze the quality and citation impact of co-authored articles in different subject fields. The findings of the study reveal that university co-authorship networks in the Greater Bay Area are still dispersed, and their disciplinary development is unbalanced. The study also finds that, while the research areas covered by high-quality co-authored articles fit the strategic needs of technological innovation and industrial distribution in the Greater Bay Area, high-quality research collaboration in the humanities and social sciences is insufficient.
The concept of innovation has for a long time been considered as the drive behind the ever-changing positions and functioning of the global community. Since the beginning of twenty-first century, creative individuals and entrepreneurs have without influence declined to accept the existing products and services as being the ultimate solution to challenges the society faces. This scholarly analysis builds on the theory of disruptive innovation to categorize and analyze the impact of disruptive innovations on key sectors of an economy in terms of their impact on the strategies and commercialization from a sectorial perspective. This analysis offers insightful information in terms of disruptive innovations which can be categorized into market-driven, product-driven, and competency-driven disruptive innovations.
This is teaser title page file. Read full text of the article via this link: https://rdcu.be/4rWv
This article provides the comprehensive analysis of research landscape in BRICS countries in different aspects: level of their publication activity and contribution to the global process of knowledge generation; thematic structure of publications of BRICS countries, their scientific specialization; quality of articles measured by citation indicators; similarity of thematic structures of publications; international research collaboration profiles; and finally closeness and relative influence of each country in intra-BRICS collaborating pairs. Special sections of the article are devoted to review of the literature, which discusses the main articles on various aspects of BRICS countries’ publication activity and their international research collaboration and to description the database and set of various bibliometric indicators, used in our analysis. We use Scopus database and the timespan of our research covers 2001–2015 years that allows us to identify key points in development of research landscapes of BRICS countries. The empirical part of the article is structured as follows. First, we provide the overview of publication activity and thematic structure of BRICS countries. Second, we measure the closeness of thematic structure of publications versus each other and versus general research agenda in the world using different indices of structural difference. Third part is the analysis of research collaboration with clear visualization of its thematic structure, identification of potential areas of collaboration and detection the influential countries in intra-BRICS collaborating pairs. We use wide range of bibliometric indicators: citation indicators; indices of structural difference; indicators of scientific collaboration. We apply different approaches to visualise data in form of different illustrative graphs including colored tables to do our research easy-to-read-and understand. The results of the study may be of interest to decision makers in determining the conscientious research story of the BRICS countries and priorities setting for multilateral scientific and technological cooperation, as well as for researchers dealing with relevant problems.
Using social network analysis to examine patenting data available at the USPTO, this paper explores an evolutionary process of global nanotechnology collaboration network from the perspective of entry and exit of collaborative organizations (nodes) and network’s preferential attachment process. The results show that the nanotechnology collaboration network evolved through frequent updates of the nodes and their relations (links). Compared with degree centrality and closeness centrality, betweenness centrality of an existing node was a significantly better predictor of the preferential attachment. The nodes with higher betweenness centrality were more influential to attract other nodes. This fact is observed while the network evolved. The results reveal that the core nodes with higher betweenness centrality were mostly large organizations that were equipped with core technology. They played an important broker role attracting more organizations into collaboration.
Delineating the emergence of nanotechnologies that offer new functionalities is an important element in an anticipatory approach to the governance of nanotechnology and its potential impacts. This paper examines the transition to next generation active nanotechnologies which incorporate functions that respond to the environment or systems concepts that combine devices and structures that are dynamic and which may change their states in use. We develop an approach to identifying these active nanotechnologies and then use bibliometric analysis to examine the extent of research papers and patents involving these concepts. We also examine references to environmental, health, and safety concepts in these papers, given that these next generation nanotechnologies are likely to have risk profiles that are different from those of first-generation passive nanomaterials. Our results show a steady growth overall in focus on active nanotechnologies in the research literature and in patents over the study period of 1990–2010. We also find an increase in consideration given to environmental, health, and safety topics. While gaps are highlighted in our understanding of research and innovation in active nanotechnologies, the results suggest that there is beginning to be a shift to active nanotechnologies, with the implication that governance processes need to be conscious of this shift and to prepare for it.
Nanotechnology is unique among emerging technologies in the level of attention given to social and ethical implications (SEIs) in its early stages of development. Central funders have set aside money for large projects to undertake “anticipatory governance” of nanotechnology, and nanoscientists and engineers themselves have solicited the help of social scientists and philosophers in helping to identify potential issues early. The distasteful and expensive experience with agricultural biotechnology, which raised near-fatal red flags late in the development process, stands clearly as an example not to be followed.
The aim of this paper is to measure the relevance of the institutions in the academic community involved in creating and disseminating knowledge in the field of Management through their position in the collaboration network. This relevance is defined by an original and more comprehensive approach to the analysis of each institution’s importance through degree centrality, as it includes scientific output, while at the same time taking into account the level of collaboration between institutions, as well as the impact of the publications in which each institution is involved. This approach enables us to draw up a ranking of the 103 leading institutions, as well as overcome some of the limitations of prior studies by considering the role each institution plays in the academic community, not only through its scientific output or citations but also through the relationships it forges with other institutions. Our findings confirm the existence of elite groups worldwide that collaborate with other minor institutions, whereas major institutions collaborate less with each other.
Based on the articles published in three top journals in the field of information systems (MISQ, ISR and JMIS) from 1993 to 2012, we conduct a research of the structure, characteristics and development trend of co-authorship network through scientometrics and social network analysis approaches. We gain a number of insights after synthetical analysis. In the last two decades the whole co-authorship network density in information systems faces a tendency of decrease. The co-authorship network presents properties of "small world". The number of articles published by scholars and institutions in the three elite journals all display a 'long tail' phenomenon. The field of information systems has a stable development in the biggest component, and has not yet went into a mature and steady stage. Quite a lot of outstanding scholars and educational resources came from USA, Canada and Hong Kong, and USA has held eight institutions of the top ten. The ranking of an entire institution can be influenced by even one or two authors, indicating that outcome from one level might propagate to the next level.
Innovation underpins competitiveness, is crucial to addressing societal challenges, and its support has become a major public policy goal. But what really works in innovation policy, and why? This Handbook, compiled by leading experts in the field, is the first comprehensive guide to understanding the logic and effects of innovation polices. The Handbook develops a conceptualisation and typology of innovation policies, presents meta-evaluations for 16 key innovation policy instruments and analyses evidence on policy-mix. For each policy instrument, underlying rationales and examples are presented, along with a critical analysis of the available impact evidence. Providing access to primary sources of impact analysis, the book offers an insightful assessment of innovation policy practice and its evaluation.
Previously, we proposed a research program to analyze spatial aspects of the science system which we called “spatial scientometrics” (Frenken, Hardeman, & Hoekman, 2009). The aim of this chapter is to systematically review recent (post-2008) contributions to spatial scientometrics on the basis of a standardized literature search. We focus our review on contributions addressing spatial aspects of scholarly impact, particularly, the spatial distribution of publication and citation impact, and the effect of spatial biases in collaboration and mobility on citation impact. We also discuss recent dedicated tools and methods for analysis and visualization of spatial scientometric data. We end with reflections about future research avenues.
Utilizing a unique dataset of the Chinese Academy of Sciences academicians (1993-2013), this paper investigates the Matthew effect in China’s science. Three indicators, namely the concentration index, the Matthew index and the coefficient of variation, are adopted to measure the uneven distribution of academicians of the Chinese Academy of Sciences among different regions and disciplines. The empirical analysis demonstrates the existence of the Matthew effect in China’s science for the above two dimensions. Yet, this effect has weakened for all regions with the exception of Beijing. We argue that this uneven distribution of the nation’s brightest minds makes scientifically competitive regions and disciplines even more competitive while putting those less developed regions and research domains at further disadvantage.
China has become the fifth leading nation in terms of its share of the world's scientific publications. The citation rate of papers with a Chinese address for the corresponding author also exhibits exponential growth. More specifically, China has become a major player in critical technologies like nanotechnology. Although it is difficult to delineate nanoscience and nanotechnology, we show that China has recently achieved a position second only to that of the USA. Funding for R&D has been growing exponentially, but since 1997 even more in terms of business expenditure than in terms of government expenditure. It seems that the Chinese government has effectively used the public-sector research potential to boost the knowledge-based economy of the country. Thus, China may be achieving the ("Lisbon") objectives of the transition to a knowledge-based economy more broadly and rapidly than its western counterparts. Because of the sustained increase in Chinese government funding and the virtually unlimited reservoir of highly-skilled human resources, one may expect a continuation of this growth pattern in the near future.
The ability to delineate the boundaries of an emerging technology is central to obtaining an understanding of the technology’s
research paths and commercialization prospects. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the case of nanotechnology (hereafter
identified as “nano”) given its current rapid growth and multidisciplinary nature. (Under the rubric of nanotechnology, we
also include nanoscience and nanoengineering.) Past efforts have utilized several strategies, including simple term search
for the prefix nano, complex lexical and citation-based approaches, and bootstrapping techniques. This research introduces
a modularized Boolean approach to defining nanotechnology which has been applied to several research and patenting databases.
We explain our approach to downloading and cleaning data, and report initial results. Comparisons of this approach with other
nanotechnology search formulations are presented. Implications for search strategy development and profiling of the nanotechnology
field are discussed.
We undertake a comprehensive review of more than 120 social science studies on nanotechnology, 90% of which are based on the
analyses of the nanotechnology publications and patents. We discussed four intellectual debates formed by these studies, namely
whether nanotechnology is an interdisciplinary field, whether nanoscience and nanotechnology are closely interlinked, whether
nanotechnology development is path dependent and who is winning the global nanorace. We also conduct a comparative analysis
of bibliometric search strategies used in the literature to harvest the publications and patents, including lexical queries,
evolutionary lexical queries, citation analysis, and the use of core journal sets to identify nanotechnology articles. Because
most of the compared strategies, except the one using 10 core journals in the field, share a core set of keywords and thus
harvest a common batch of publications, they produce very similar ranking tables of the top subject areas and journals and
the most prolific countries and institutions. Moreover, the core journal strategy does not provide a robust delineation of
an emerging field such as nanotechnology due to the fact that nanotechnology related articles are published in a wide range
of journals. Also, the different criteria for selecting the core journals will affect the analytical results dramatically.
KeywordsNanotechnology–Research and development–Productivity–Publications–Patents–Bibliometric analysis–Data mining–Search strategy
This article examines the relative positions with respect to nanotechnology research publications of the European Union (EU),
the United States (US), Japan, Germany, China, and three Asian Tiger nations (South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan). The analysis
uses a dataset of nanotechnology publication records for the time period 1990 through 2006 (part year) extracted from the
Science Citation Index obtained through the Web of Science and was developed through a two-stage modularized Boolean approach.
The results show that although the EU and the US have the highest number of nanotechnology publications, China and other Asian
countries are increasing their publications rapidly, taking an ever-larger proportion of the total. When viewed in terms of
the quality-based measure of citations, Asian nanotechnology researchers also show growth in recent years. However, by such
citation measures, the US still maintains a strongly dominant position, followed by the EU.
Text mining is the extraction of useful information from large volumes of text. A text mining analysis of the global open nanotechnology literature was performed. Records from the Science Citation Index (SCI)/Social SCI were analyzed to provide the infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature (prolific authors/journals/institutions/countries, most cited authors/papers/journals) and the thematic structure (taxonomy) of the global nanotechnology literature, from a science perspective. Records from the Engineering Compendex (EC) were analyzed to provide a taxonomy from a technology perspective.
•The Far Eastern countries have expanded nanotechnology publication output dramatically in the past decade.•The Peoples Republic of China ranks second to the USA (2004 results) in nanotechnology papers published in the SCI, and has increased its nanotechnology publication output by a factor of 21 in a decade.•Of the six most prolific (publications) nanotechnology countries, the three from the Western group (USA, Germany, France) have about eight percent more nanotechnology publications (for 2004) than the three from the Far Eastern group (China, Japan, South Korea).•While most of the high nanotechnology publication-producing countries are also high nanotechnology patent producers in the US Patent Office (as of 2003), China is a major exception. China ranks 20th as a nanotechnology patent-producing country in the US Patent Office.
China has become the fifth leading nation in terms of its share of the world's scientific publications. The citation rate of papers with a Chinese address for the corresponding author also exhibits exponential growth. More specifically, China has become a major player in critical technologies like nanotechnology. Although it is difficult to delineate nanoscience and nanotechnology, we show that China has recently achieved a position second only to that of the USA. Funding for R&D has been growing exponentially, but since 1997 even more in terms of business expenditure than in terms of government expenditure. It seems that the Chinese government has effectively used the public-sector research potential to boost the knowledge-based economy of the country. Thus, China may be achieving the (“Lisbon”) objectives of the transition to a knowledge-based economy more broadly and rapidly than its western counterparts. Because of the sustained increase in Chinese government funding and the virtually unlimited reservoir of highly skilled human resources, one may expect a continuation of this growth pattern in the near future.
Authorship identity has long been an Achilles’ heel in bibliometric analyses at the individual level. This problem appears
in studies of scientists’ productivity, inventor mobility and scientific collaboration. Using the concepts of cognitive maps
from psychology and approximate structural equivalence from network analysis, we develop a novel algorithm for name disambiguation
based on knowledge homogeneity scores. We test it on two cases, and the results show that this approach outperforms other
common authorship identification methods with the ASE method providing a relatively simple algorithm that yields higher levels
of accuracy with reasonable time demands.
Summary A chronically weak area in research papers, reports, and reviews is the complete identification of background documents that formed the building blocks for these papers. A method for systematically determining these seminal references is presented. Citation-Assisted Background (CAB) is based on the assumption that seminal documents tend to be highly cited. CAB is being applied presently to three applications studies, and the results so far are much superior to those used by the first author for background development in any other study. An example of the application of CAB to the field of Nonlinear Dynamics is outlined. While CAB is a highly systematic approach for identifying seminal references, it is not a substitute for the judgement of the researchers, and serves as a supplement.
Nanotechnology is expected by many to be one of the next drivers of technology-based business and economic growth. China has emerged as a global player in nanotechnology development, and now ranks second (after the United States) in nanotechnology scientific publications produced annually. The study of nanotechnology offers a lens to examine China's capabilities to move closer to the frontier of technology-led economic development, explore the evolving Chinese innovation system, and assess the effectiveness of policy strategies to modernize and add-value to research and industry in China. Supported by new policy initiatives and funding, hundreds of institutions and thousands of researchers in China are engaged in nanotechnology R&D. Yet, although Chinese nanotechnology research has scale, the pathways from laboratory research to successful commercialization remain problematic. Chinese performance in nanotechnology patenting and product development is weak relative to its research strength, suggesting a significant gap between the research base and industrial development. Drawing on bibliometric research and field interviews with Chinese nanotechnology policymakers, researchers and business representatives, we analyze this gap, explore the factors contributing to it and assess future commercialization trajectories.
By analysing publication and citation data, it is possible to explore the relationships between nanoscience and nanotechnology and the rest of science and technology.
The OECD REGPAT database presents patent data that have been linked to regions according to the addresses of the applicants and inventors. The data have been 'regionalised' at a very detailed level so that more than 2 000 regions are covered across OECD countries. REGPAT allows patent data to be used in connection with other regional data such as GDP or labour force statistics, and other patent-based information such as citations, technical fields and patent holder's characteristics (industry, university, etc.), thus providing researchers with the means to develop a rich set of new indicators and undertake a broad range of analyses to address issues relating to the regional dimension of innovation. By making regionalised patent data available to all students interested in the field, the OECD aims to stimulate research and contribute to a better understanding of the regional dimension of innovation. In addition, the methodology used for the construction of REGPAT is published, to give users the opportunity to suggest modifications and thus contribute to improvements in the quality of REGPAT. The full technical description of the REGPAT database as accessible to users is provided in annex. Patent data provide unique insights into the outcome and characteristics of inventive activities, including at regional level. They have limitations however, like all data sources, and should be handled with methodological care.
Base de données REGPAT de l’OCDE : Présentation
La base REGPAT de l'OCDE présente des données relatives aux brevets appariées à des régions en fonction des adresses des demandeurs et inventeurs. Le niveau de détail de cette « régionalisation » est très poussé, de sorte que plus de 2 000 régions de toute la zone OCDE sont couvertes. REGPAT permet d'utiliser les données concernant les brevets en relation avec d'autres données régionales telles que le PIB ou les statistiques sur la main-d'oeuvre, et avec d'autres informations propres aux brevets - citations, domaines techniques, caractéristiques du détenteur du brevet (secteur d'activité, université, etc.) ; les chercheurs peuvent ainsi agencer à leur guise un ensemble élargi d'indicateurs nouveaux et se livrer à des analyses très diverses portant sur les questions liées à la dimension régionale de l'innovation. En mettant des données régionalisées sur les brevets à la disposition de tous les analystes qui s'intéressent à ce domaine, l'OCDE a pour objectif de stimuler la recherche et de concourir à mieux faire appréhender cette dimension. Par ailleurs, la méthodologie présidant à la construction de REGPAT est rendue publique, de sorte que ses utilisateurs peuvent suggérer des modifications et, par là, contribuer à son amélioration qualitative. La description technique complète de la base telle qu'y accède l'usager est fournie en annexe. Les données relatives aux brevets livrent des enseignements sans équivalents sur les résultats et les caractéristiques des activités d'invention, y compris au niveau régional. Comme toutes les sources de données, elles comportent toutefois des limites et doivent être manipulées avec les précautions méthodologiques d'usage.
Enhanced abilities to understand and manipulate matter at the molecular and atomic levels promise a wave of significant new technologies over the next five decades. Dramatic breakthroughs will occur in diverse areas such as medicine, communications, computing, energy, and robotics. These changes will generate large amounts of wealth and force wrenching changes in existing markets and institutions. This paper discusses the range of sciences currently covered by nanotechnology. It begins with a description of what nanotechnology is and how it relates to previous scientific advances. It then describes the most likely future development of different technologies in a variety of fields. The paper also reviews the government's current nanotechnology policy and makes some suggestions for improvement.
Text mining was used to extract technical intelligence from the open source global nanotechnology and nanoscience research literature (SCI/SSCI databases). The following were identified: (i) the nanotechnology/nanoscience research literature infrastructure (prolific authors, key journals/institutions/ countries, most cited authors/journals/documents); (ii) the technical structure (pervasive technical thrusts and their inter-relationships); (iii) nanotechnology instruments and their relationships; (iv) potential nanotechnology applications; (v) potential health impacts and applications, and (vi) seminal nanotechnology literature. The results are summarized in this article.
Introduction 1. Surprising Success 2. Learning the Silicon Valley System 3. Creating Cross-Regional Communities 4. Taiwan as Silicon Sibling 5. Taiwan as Partner and Parent 6. Manufacturing in Mainland China 7. IT Enclaves in India 8. The Argonaut Advantage Appendix A: Immigrant Professional and Networking Associations, Silicon Valley Appendix B: Survey Results: Immigrant Professionals in Silicon Valley Notes References Abbreviations Acknowledgments Index
Nanotechnology is predicted to be a US$2.6 trillion market by 2014. China, along with some 40 other countries, is investing in nanotechnology as a major key to global economic competitiveness. This paper reviews recent efforts by the Chinese government to become a world leader in nanotechnology, from fundamental research to the incubation of commercial products. Its findings are based on Chinese government reports, existing studies, and interviews with leading Chinese academicians, scientists and engineers, and policy-makers. We conclude that while China has made strides on such indicators as scientific publications and some commercial sectors, the long-term returns on this effort remain uncertain. While the combination of international collaboration and increased public investment in nanotechnology holds promise for advancing nanoscience in China, most commercial returns still appear to be a long way off. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.
The worldwide nanotechnology research and development (R&D) investment reported by government organizations has increased by a factor of 3.5 between 1997 and 2001, and the highest rate of 90% is in 2001. At least 30 countries have initiated or are beginning national activities in this field. Scientists have opened a broad net of discoveries that does not leave any major research area untouched in physical, biological, and engineering sciences. Industry has gained confidence that nanotechnology will bring competitive advantages. The worldwide annual industrial production is estimated to exceed $1 trillion in 10–15 years from now, which would require about 2 million nanotechnology workers. U.S. has initiated a multidisciplinary strategy for development of science and engineering fundamentals through the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Japan and Europe have broad programs, and their current plans look ahead to four to five years. Other countries have encouraged their own areas of strength, several of them focusing on fields of the potential markets. Differences among countries are observed in the research domain they are aiming for, the level of program integration into various industrial sectors, and in the time scale of their R & D targets. Nanotechnology is growing in an environment where international interactions accelerate in science, education and industrial R & D. A global strategy of mutual interest is envisioned by connecting individual programs of contributing countries, professional communities, and international organizations.
Analysing co-authored publications has become the standard way to
measure research collaborations. At the same time bibliometric researchers have
advised that co-authorship based indicators should be handled with care as a
source of evidence on actual scientific collaboration. The aim of this study is
to assess how well university-industry collaborations can be identified and
described using co-authorship data. This is done through a comparison of
co-authorship data with industrial funding to a medical university. In total
436 companies were identified through the two methods. Our results show that
one third of the companies that have provided funding to the university had not
co-authored any publications with the university. Further, the funding
indicator identified only 16% of the companies that had co-authored
publications. Thus, both co-authorship and funding indicators provide
incomplete results. We also observe a case of conflicting trends between
funding and co-authorship indicators. We conclude that uncritical use of the
two indicators may lead to misinterpretation of the development of
collaborations and thus provide incorrect data for decision-making.
A comparison was made of the research output literatures of India and China. Both bibliometric and computational linguistics approaches were used in the comparison. China has rapidly outpaced India in both volume and citation performance of publications. China's rapid publication growth rate over the past two decades is continuing, while India's is re-starting after a relatively dormant period of almost two decades.
This paper aims to provide an integrated bibliometric analysis of the knowledge base of nanoscience and nanotechnology in the Chinese research community. For comparative purposes, the results are benchmarked against the findings from four other major nations: France, Germany, Japan, and the USA. It is found that China is productive in nanoscience as far as publication activity is concerned. The analyses of collaboration and institutional patterns enable us to identify the active collaborative networks and productive research institutions among the five countries. Finally, analysis of the citation share and certain surrogate indicators shows that the Chinese scientific community needs to work on improving its research impact.
Activities on nanoscale research have seen a skyrocketting growth beginning during the nineties. This can be documented by
the birth of no less than 16 science journals dedicated entirely to this field of science. The topics of these journals reflect
the true interdisciplinary character of nanoscale research. In this paper the decision-makers on what and when appears in
those journals, the gatekeepers, i.e., the editorial members of those journals and their national identity are analyzed and
some conclusions are drawn on the decisional power of the countries these gatekeepers are located in.
It came out that although the United States is still the leading power in the nanoscale research field, the EU is strongly
catching up and due to intensive efforts in this directions by some Far East countries as China and Japan but also of India,
Asia is nearing and in some cases even overtaking the big powers.
Nanoscience and technology (NST) is a young scientific and technological field that has generated great worldwide interest
in the past two decades. Previous bibliometric analyses have unmistakably demonstrated the remarkable growth of the global
NST literature. While almost all published research articles in NST are in English, increasingly a larger share of NST publications
is published in the Chinese language. Perplexingly, Chinese is the only language — apart from English — that displays an ascendant
trend in the NST literature. In this brief note, we explore and evaluate three arguments that could explain this phenomenon:
coverage bias, language preference, and community formation.
Text mining was used to extract technical intelligence from the open source global nanotechnology and nanoscience research
literature. An extensive nanotechnology/nanoscience-focused query was applied to the Science Citation Index/Social Science
Citation Index (SCI/SSCI) databases. The nanotechnology/nanoscience research literature infrastructure (prolific authors,
key journals/institutions/countries, most cited authors/journals/documents) was obtained using bibliometrics. A novel addition
was the use of institution and country auto-correlation maps to show co-publishing networks among institutions and among countries,
and the use of institution-phrase and country-phrase cross-correlation maps to show institution networks and country networks
based on use of common terminology (proxy for common interests). The use of factor matrices quantified further the strength
of the linkages among institutions and among countries, and validated the co-publishing networks shown graphically on the
maps.
Since their arrival in the 1960s, electronic databases have been an invaluable tool for informetricians. Databases and their
delivery mechanism have provided both the source of raw data, as well as the analytical tools for many informetric studies.
In particular, the citation databases produced by the Institute for Scientific Information have been the key source of data
for a whole range of citation-based research. However, there are also many problems and challenges associated with the use
of online databases. Most of the problems arise because databases are designed primarily for information retrieval purposes,
and informetric studies represent only a secondary use of the systems. The sorts of problems encountered by informetricians
include: errors or inconsistency in the data itself; problems with the coverage, overlap and changeability of the databases;
as well as problems and limitations in the tools provided by the database hosts such as DIALOG. For some informetric studies,
the only viable solution to these problems is to download the data and perform offline correction and data analysis.
In recent years, nanoscience and nanotechnology, which refer to the growing knowledge base and technical framework for understanding
and manipulating matter on nanometer scales ranging from the atomic to the cellular, have been ascendant on the world stage
of science and technology. First introduced into China in the 1980s, the nanoresearch movement has been picking up momentum
there. As growth in this technical arena accelerates and the vast technological and commercial stakes become more apparent,
China has been embracing and supporting its own efforts with ever more vigor. In his roles as a pioneer researcher in Chinese
nanoscience and as a prominent and powerful voice in China's scientific community, Chunli Bai has been instrumental in ushering
his country into the front lines of this now global technical framework that some have likened to a modern-day industrial
revolution. Although China has yet to invest as much in this coming nano era as have countries such as the United States and
Japan, its researchers are contributing increasingly more consequential discoveries and advances. In time, predicts Dr. Bai,
China will be among those countries most influential in determining how the coming era of nanoscience and nanotechnology unfolds.
All essays and interactive features appearing in this series can be found at
www.sciencemag.org/sciext/globalvoices/
This study uses a variety of indicators such as patent grants, new product sales and R&D spending to examine the spatial patterns of industrial innovation in China during the 1990s. It is found that industrial innovation in China has been concentrated in the coastal areas, and the spatial concentration has been increasing in the 1990s, which is contrary to what Sun (2000) found on the patterns of all patent applications in 1985 to 1995. The study also reveals that large and medium-sized enterprises in China have experienced a switch in their modes of innovative behaviours in the late 1990s: from more spending on imported technologies to more in-house R&D; though expenditure on absorbing imported technologies has been marginal. Finally, enterprises are not well integrated with independent R&D institutes regarding their R&D efforts, which indicates that the national innovation system in China is still fragmented. Copyright 2003 by the Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG.
The OECD REGPAT database: a presentation. STI Working Paper OECD reviews of innovation policy: China
- S Maraut
- H Dernis
- C Webb
- V Spiezia
- D Guellec
Maraut, S., Dernis, H., Webb, C., Spiezia V., & Guellec, D. (2008). The OECD REGPAT database: a presentation. STI Working Paper 2008/2, OECD, Paris. OECD. (2008). OECD reviews of innovation policy: China. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
International collaboration, knowledge moderation, and the growth of China's nanoscience and nanotechnology. Working paper. http://www.spp.gatech Bibliometric fingerprints: name disambiguation based on approximate struc-ture equivalence of cognitive maps
- L Tang
- P L Shapira
- J Walsh
Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2008). International collaboration, knowledge moderation, and the growth of China's nanoscience and nanotechnology. Working paper. http://www.spp.gatech.edu/faculty/WOPR papers/Tang.WOPR.pdf. Tang, L., & Walsh, J. (2010). Bibliometric fingerprints: name disambiguation based on approximate struc-ture equivalence of cognitive maps. Scientometrics, 84(3), 763–794. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0196-6.
Nanotechnology takes a deep breath … and prepares to save the world: global nanotechnology funding in
- Cientifica
The next big thing is really small: how nanotechnology will change the future of your business
- J Uldrich
- D Newberry
Text mining Encyclopedia of nanoscience and society
- L Tang
- A L Porter
International collaboration, knowledge moderation, and the growth of China’s nanoscience and nanotechnology. Working paper
- L Tang
- P Shapira
The business of nanotech
Business Week. (2005). The business of nanotech. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/
05_07/b3920001_mz001.htm. Accessed 27 June 2010.
Nanotechnology: the future is coming sooner than you think
- Joint Economic Committee