Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyses the growth pattern of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology literature in India during 1990–2009 (20 years). The Scopus international multidisciplinary bibliographical database has been used to identify the Indian contributions on the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The study measures the performance based on several parameters, country annual growth rate, authorship pattern, collaborative index, collaborative coefficient, modified collaborative coefficient, subject profile, etc. Further the study examines national publication output and impact in terms of average citations per paper, international collaboration output and share, contribution and impact of Indian Institutions and impact of Indian journals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajiferuke, I., Burell, O., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14, 421–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso, S., et al. (2010). hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g-indices. Scientometrics, 82, 391–400. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0047-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassecoulard, E., Lelu, A., & Zitt, M. (2007). Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis. Scientometrics, 70(3), 859–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, S., & Nath, P. (2002). Using patent statistics as a measure of “technologies assertiveness”? A China-India comparison. Current Science, 83(1), 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Schubert, A. P., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., & Roco, M. C. (2009). Mapping nanotechnology innovations and knowledge (p. 330). New York, USA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Franks, A. (1987). Nanotechnology. Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments, 20, 1442–1451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg, K. C., & Pandhi, P. (1999). Scientometrics of laser research literature as viewed through, Journal of Current Laser Abstracts. Scientometrics, 45, 19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg, K. C., et al. (2009). Bibliometrics of global malaria vaccine research. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 22–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzel, W., Meyer, M., Du Plessis, M., Thijs, B., Magerman, T., Schlemmer, B., et al. (2003). Nanotechnology: Analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavour. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: Steupunt O&O Staisitieken.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of National Academic Science, USA, 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Z., Chen, H., Chen, Z. K., & Roco, M. (2004). International nanotechnology development in 2003; country, institution and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 325–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. H., Chiang, L. Y., & Chen, D. Z. (2003). Constructing a patent citation map using bibliographic coupling: A study of Taiwans high-tech companies. Scientometrics, 58(3), 458–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hullmann, A. (2007). Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(3), 739–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in the nanotechnology: An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igami, M. (2008). Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications. Scientometrics, 77(2), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007). Global nanotechnology research metrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 565–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff, R. N., Stump, J. A., Johnson, D., Murday, J. S., Lau, C. G. Y., & Tolles, W. M. (2006). The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(3), 301–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawani, S. M. (1980). Quality, collaboration and citations in cancer research: A 268 bibliometric study. Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University, 395 pp.

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2008). The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update. Scientometrics, 76(1), 159–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3), 693–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Chen, H., Dang, Y., Lin, Y., Larsen, C. A., & Roco, M. C. (2008). A longitudinal analysis of nanotechnology literature 1976–2994. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M.-W., & Zhang, J. (2007). Language trends in nanoscience and technology: The case of Chinese-language publications. Scientometrics, 70(3), 555–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., et al. (2009). Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia and India. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 1845–1866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahapatra, M. (1985). On the validity of the theory of exponential growth of scientific literature. In 15th IASLIC conference proceedings, Bangalore, IASLIC, pp 61–70.

  • Meyer, M. (2000a). Patent citations in a novel field of technology—what can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology? Scientometrics, 48(2), 151–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000b). Does science push technology? Please citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000c). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49(1), 93–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2001). Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 51(1), 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2007). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path dependency. Scientometrics, 70(3), 779–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2), 195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Persson, O., & Power, Y. (2001). Nanotechnology expert group and eurotech data mapping excellence in nanotechnologies, EC, DG-research, Preparatory study.

  • Mithal, R., Ahmad, M., & Singh, G. (2005). Citation mapping of published literature on Embelia ribes. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 52(4), 308–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohan, L., Prakasan, E. R., Kademani, B. S., Surwase, G., Kumar, A., & Kumar, V. (2010). Research trends in nanoscience and nanotechnology in India. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 30(2), 40–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagpaul, P. S. (1995). Contribution of Indian universities to the mainstream scientific literature, a bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics, 32, 11–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noyons, E. C., Buter, R. K., Hinze, S., Van Raan, A. F. J., Schmoch, U., Heinze, T., & Rangnow, R. (2003). Mapping excellence in science and technology across Eruope: Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, EC, EC-PPN, CT 2002-0001.

  • Parr, D. (2005). Will nanotechnology make the world a better place? Trends in Biotechnology, 23(8), 395–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1998). Do patents reflect the useful output of universities? Research Evaluation, 7(2), 105–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouris, A. (2007). Nanoscale research in South Africa: A mapping exercise based on scientometrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prathap, G. (2010). The 100 most prolific economists using the p-index. Scientometrics, 84, 167–172. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0068-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prathap, G., & Gupta, B. M. (2009). Ranking of Indian engineering and technological institutes for their research performance during 1999–2008. Current Science, 97(3).

  • Radrigo, Costas., & Maria, Bordons. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 267–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajeswari, A. R. (1996). Indian patent statistics: An analysis. Scientometrics, 36(1), 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retrieved from Scopus Info Site on March 2, 2010 http://info.scopus.com.

  • Roco, M. C. (2001). International strategyfor nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 3(5–6), 353–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangeetha, M. A., Chakrabarti, S., & Amba, S. (1999). Indian leather patents: An analysis. World Patent Information, 21(2), 69–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savanur, K., & Srikanth, R. (2010). Modified collaborative coefficient: A new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration. Scientometrics, 84, 365–371. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0100-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2008). The influence of self-citations corrections on Egghe’s g-index. Scientometrics, 76(1), 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, L. I., & Joutz, F. L. (2009). Methods for identifying emerging general purpose technologies: A case study of nanotechnologies. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0244-2.

  • Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (2007). The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: A bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy. Scientometrics, 70(3), 669–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6, 33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takeda, Y., et al. (2009). Nanobiotechnology as an emerging research domain from nanotechnology: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 80(1), 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol, R. S. J. (2009). The h-index and its alternatives: An application to the 100 most prolific economists. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s/11192-008-2079-7.

  • Wilson, C. S. (2001). Informetrics, In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, Medford NJ: Information Today, Inc. for the American Society for Information Science, pp. 3–143.

  • Wilson, M., Kannangara, K., Smith, G., Simmons, M., & Raguse, B. (2002). Nanotechnology: Basic science and emerging technologies. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (2006). Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: An application to nanosciences. Information Processing & Management, 42(6), 1513–1531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Library, Anna University, Chennai, 25, India

    R. Karpagam

  2. Anna University, MIT Campus, Chennai, 44, India

    S. Gopalakrishnan

  3. Tamil Arasi Publications, Chennai, 18, India

    M. Natarajan

  4. Department of Library and Information Science, University of Madras, Chennai, 5, India

    B. Ramesh Babu

Authors
  1. R. Karpagam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Gopalakrishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Natarajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Ramesh Babu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Karpagam.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Search term

AFFIL(INDIA) AND PUBYEAR AFT 1989 AND PUBYEAR BEF 2010 AND NANO* AND NOT (NANO2 OR NANO3 OR NANO4 OR NANO5 OR NANO-SECON* OR NANOSECON* OR NANO-GRAM* OR NANOGRAM* OR NANOMOL* OR NANOPHTALM* OR NANOMELI* OR NANOGETEROTROPH* OR NANOPLANKTON* OR NANOKELVIN* OR NANO-CURIE OR NANOCURIE OR NANOS OR NANOS1 OR NANOPRTO* OR NANOPHYTO* OR NANOFLAGELLATE*) OR QUANTUM-DOT* OR QUANTUM-WIRE* OR MOLECULAR-BEAM-EPITAXY OR MBE OR CARBONTUB* OR CARBONTUB* OR BUCKYTUB* OR BUCKY-TUB* OR FULLERENE-TUB* OR SELF-ASSEMBLED-MONOLAYER* OR SELF-ASSEMBL*-DOT* OR SINGLE-ELECTRON* OR SINGLE-MOLECUL* OR ATOMIC-FORCE-MICROSCOP* OR CHEMICAL-FORCE-MICROSCOP*

Appendix 2

See Table 11.

Table 11 Distribution of authorship
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Karpagam, R., Gopalakrishnan, S., Natarajan, M. et al. Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009. Scientometrics 89, 501–522 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0477-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0477-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation