Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How latecomers catch up to leaders in high-energy physics as Big Science: transition from national system to international collaboration

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study describes the increase of research productivity of latecomer countries (latecomers) in the high-energy physics (HEP) community by research strategies based on a national system and international collaboration (IC). The INSPIRE system, a bibliographic database for HEP researchers was used to obtain the number of publications and citations as indicators of research productivity. Our bibliometric estimates highlight two main results. First, latecomers’ national systems of public research institutes play a major role, and initially produced a large proportion of the research output, but this influence declined as IC increased. Second, IC greatly increased both the quantity and quality (number of citations) of research output in all latecomers. In most countries, the IC strategy has shown a strong correlation with the research output. The findings highlight the importance of a national research-support system and development of IC as strategies for new states that are entering the HEP field, and provide comparison of the two strategies. Further bibliometric research, such as examination of the strategic patterns of the leading countries will broaden the understanding of the national units of the HEP academic community.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Because the whole period search of INSPIRE is much faster than the partial period search (d 1960 → 2016), time was saved by subtracting the result of partial period search after 2016 (d > 2016) from the whole period search.

  2. In this case, the PRIs are searched as ‘a lump’, so double counting does not occur. On the contrary, formula (3) searches for each institute, double counting can occur, so another term should be added to exclude subordinate (or superordinate) institutes.

  3. The advanced group is 13 countries (USA, Germany, UK, France, Italy, USSR/Russia, Japan, Switzerland, India, Brazil, Poland, Canada, Denmark).

  4. This figure includes double counting. The number of publications worldwide has been added to the total number of publications in each country, and double counting has been allowed to confirm its share of the top 40 countries.

  5. Although Taiwan is technically not accepted as a nation state, we follow the nationality of INSPIRE system which is based on internet country codes.

  6. The ‘astronomy’ category of INSPIRE does not cover all sub-disciplines of astronomy, but only major experiments related to HEP, specifically those related to the dark-matter search and dark energy studies.

  7. Although the share declined in 1996–2000 and 2001–2005 period, it was still similar or even increased in the section of the super-highly cited publications such as n ≥ 250.

References

  • Adams, J. (2012). The rise of research networks. Nature, 490, 335–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497, 557–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. W. (2003). A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics, 56(2), 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaldi, U. (2015). Particle accelerators: From big bang physics to hadron therapy. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Lariviére, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320–1326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., Hameri, A.-P., & Vuola, O. (2004). A framework of industrial knowledge spillovers in big-science centers. Research Policy, 33, 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, J., & Ng, S. (2001). Tests for skewness, kurtosis, and normality for time series data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 23(1), 49–60.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A. (2007). Explaining poor performance of European science. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 303–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Gómez, I., Méndez, A., & Schubert, A. (1992). International co-authorship patterns in physics and its subfields, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 24(2), 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choung, J.-Y., & Hwang, H.-R. (2013). The evolutionary patterns of knowledge production in Korea. Scientometrics, 94, 629–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collazo-Reyes, F., Luna-Morales, M. E., & Russell, J. M. (2004). Publication and citation patterns of the Mexican contribution to a “Big Science” discipline: Elementary particle physics. Scientometrics, 60(2), 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collazo-Reyes, F., Luna-Morales, M. E., Russell, J. M., & Pérez-Angón, M. Á. (2010). Enriching knowledge production patterns of Mexican physics in particles and fields. Scientometrics, 85, 791–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czerwon, H.-J. (1990). Scientometric indicators for a specialty in theoretical high-energy physics: Monte Carlo methods in lattice field theory. Scientometrics, 18(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Silva, C. G. (1996). The National Laboratory for Synchrotron Light—The Brazil experience. Beam Line, 26(1), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Almeida, E. C. E., & Guimarães, J. A. (2013). Brazil’s growing production of scientific articles—How are we doing with review articles and other qualitative indicators? Scientometrics, 97, 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Solla Price, D. J. (1986). Little science, big science and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press. http://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Little_science_big_science_and_beyond.pdf. Accessed 30 August 2018.

  • Doel, R. E. (2003). Constituting the Postwar Earth Sciences: The military’s influence on the environmental sciences in the USA after 1945. Social Studies of Science, 33(5), 635–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godbole, R. M. (2002). Decline in scientific publication in India: Is high energy physics an exception? Current Science, 83(10), 1179–1180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldemberg, J. (1998). What is the role of science in developing countries? Science, 279, 1140–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, B. M., & Dhawan, S. M. (2009). Status of physics research in India: An analysis of research output during 1993–2001. Scientometrics, 78(2), 295–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallonsten, O., & Heinze, T. (2012). Institutional persistence through gradual organizational adaptation: Analysis of national laboratories in the USA and Germany. Science and Public Policy, 39, 450–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallonsten, O., & Heinze, T. (2013). From particle physics to photon science: Multi-dimensional and multi-level renewal at DESY and SLAC. Science and Public Policy, 40, 591–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallonsten, O., & Heinze, T. (2015). Formation and expansion of a new organizational field in experimental science. Science and Public Policy, 42, 841–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, S. U., Sawar, R., & Muazzam, A. (2016). Tapping into intra- and international collaborations of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation states across science and technology disciplines. Science and Public Policy, 43(5), 690–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, J., & Martin, B. R. (1985). Basic research in the east and west: A comparison of the scientific performance of high-energy physics accelerators. Social Studies of Science, 15(2), 293–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, H. J., & Lee, J. (2014). The impacts of science and technology policy interventions on university research: Evidence from the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative. Research Policy, 43, 74–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3), 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. J. (2005). Korean science and international collaboration, 1995–2000. Scientometrics, 63(2), 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, B. (1973). Decision-making in big science the development of the high-voltage electron microscope. Research Policy, 2, 56–70.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 317–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(1), 101–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manganote, E. J. T., Schulz, P. A., & De Brito Cruz, C. H. (2016). Effect of high energy physics large collaborations on higher education institutions citations and rankings. Scientometrics, 109, 813–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1981). Internal criteria for scientific choice: An evaluation of research in high-energy physics using electron accelerators. Minerva, 19(3), 408–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research. Research Policy, 12, 61–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1984a). CERN: Past performance and future prospects I. CERN’s position in world high-energy physics. Research Policy, 13, 183–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1984b). CERN past performance and future prospects II. The scientific performance of the CERN accelerators. Research Policy, 13, 247–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1984c). CERN past performance and future prospects III. CERN and the future of world high-energy physics. Research Policy, 13, 311–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masperi, L. (2000). Survey of high-energy physics in Latin America. In Proceeding of third Latin American symposium on high energy physics. https://pos.sissa.it/005/022/pdf. Accessed 22 April 2018.

  • Mathews, J. A., & Hu, M. C. (2007). Universities and public research institutions as drivers. In S. Yusuf & K. Nabeshima (Eds.), How universities promote economic growth (pp. 91–110). Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, J. (2012). Big science and its problems: The development of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. In A. Heck (Ed.), Organizations, people and strategies in astronomy I (pp. 285–294). Duttlenheim: Venngeist.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, B. G. (2014). Aceleradores para Colombia. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. https://doi.org/10.18257/raccefyn.155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, L. E. (2001). Radiation protection at low energy proton accelerators. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 96(4), 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F. (1991). Globalization of research, scholarly information, and patents—Ten year trends. The Serials Librarian, 21(2–3), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. The Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panofsky, W. K. H. (1997). The evolution of particle accelerators and colliders. Beam Line, 26(1), 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perović, S., Radovanović, S., Sikimić, V., & Berber, A. (2016). Optimal research team composition: Data envelopment analysis of Fermilab experiments. Scientometrics, 108, 83–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potì, B., & Reale, E. (2000). Convergence and differentiation in institutional change among European public research systems: The decreasing role of public research institutes. Science and Public Policy, 27(6), 421–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, B. (2014). High energy colliding beams; What is their future?. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-16069.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2018.

  • Rovira, L., Senra, P., & Jour, D. (2000). Bibliometric analysis of physics in Catalonia: Towards quality consolidation? Scientometrics, 49(2), 233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, M., & Chollet, B. (2017). Is there a first mover advantage in science? Pioneering behavior and scientific production in nanotechnology. Research Policy, 46, 522–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, G., Prado, L., & Bietenholz, W. (2018). Theoretical high energy physics in Latin America from 1990 to 2012: A statistical study. Scientometrics, 116, 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiltsev, V. (2013). The first colliders: AdA, VEP-1 and Princeton-Stanford. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory archive. http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/test-fn/0000/fermilab-fn-0964-apc.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2018.

  • Six, J., & Bustamante, M. C. (1996). Bibliometric analysis of publications in experimental particle physics on cosmic rays and with accelerators. Scientometrics, 37(1), 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. (1997). Economic infrastructures and innovation systems. In C. Edquist (Ed.), System of innovation (pp. 86–106). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuola, O., & Hameri, A.-P. (2006). Mutually benefiting joint innovation process between industry and big-science. Technovation, 26(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 62(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34, 1608–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner-Döbler, R. (2001). Continuity and discontinuity of collaboration behaviour since 1800 – from a bibliometric point of view. Scientometrics, 52(3), 503–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westfall, C. (2012). Institutional persistence and the material transformation of the US national labs: The curious story of the advent of the advanced photon source. Science and Public Policy, 39, 439–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, C.-Y., Hu, M.-C., & Shiu, J.-W. (2015). Collaboration between public research institutes and universities: A study of industrial technology research institute, Taiwan. Science, Technology & Society, 20(2), 161–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C., & Fang, S. (2016). Particle accelerators in China. Reviews of Accelerator Science and Technology, 9, 265–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Science and Technology (UST), 217, Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34113, South Korea

    Young-Sun Jang & Young Joo Ko

  2. Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology, 141, Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34114, South Korea

    Young-Sun Jang & Young Joo Ko

  3. National Research Council of Science and Technology (NST), Building A, Sejong National Research Complex, 370, Sicheong-daero, Sejong-Si, South Korea

    Young Joo Ko

Authors
  1. Young-Sun Jang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Young Joo Ko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young Joo Ko.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 164 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jang, YS., Ko, Y.J. How latecomers catch up to leaders in high-energy physics as Big Science: transition from national system to international collaboration. Scientometrics 119, 437–480 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03030-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03030-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation