Abstract
The share of nanotechnology publications involving authors from more than one country more than doubled in the 1990s, but then fell again until 2004, before recovering somewhat during the latter years of the decade. Meanwhile, the share of nanotechnology papers involving at least one Chinese author increased substantially over the last two decades. Papers involving Chinese authors are far less likely to be internationally co-authored than papers involving authors from other countries. Nonetheless, this appears to be changing as Chinese nanotechnology research becomes more advanced. An arithmetic decomposition confirms that China’s growing share of such research accounts, in large part, for the observed stagnation of international collaboration. Thus two aspects of the globalization of science can work in opposing directions: diffusion to initially less scientifically advanced countries can depress international collaboration rates, while at the same time scientific advances in such countries can reverse this trend. We find that the growth of China’s scientific community explains some, but not all of the dynamics of China’s international collaboration rate. We therefore provide an institutional account of these dynamics, drawing on Stichweh’s [Social Science information 35(2):327–340, 1996] original paper on international scientific collaboration, which, in examining the interrelated development of national and international scientific networks, predicts a transitional phase during which science becomes a more national enterprise, followed by a phase marked by accelerating international collaboration. Validating the application of this approach, we show that Stichweh’s predictions, based on European scientific communities in the 18th and 19th centuries, seem to apply to the Chinese scientific community in the 21st century.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Wagner and Leydesdorff (2005a) show that the share of all SCI-recorded scientific papers that involve authors from more than one country roughly doubled, from 8.7% in 1990 to 15.6% in 2000. Using slightly different data, they show a continuation of this upwards trend through 2005 (Leydesdorff and Wagner 2008). Wagner (2008) notes that this trend is similar across many scientific disciplines. The United States National Science Board (NSB 2010) finds that international collaboration rates in social sciences, mathematics, engineering and other sciences rose from 8 to 22% between 1988 and 2008.
In this paper we employ the standard term “diffusion” to describe the spread of scientific activity to formerly underrepresented countries. We do so, however, with the caveat that while some of the growth in Chinese scientific productivity can be attributed to the diffusion of knowledge to China from more scientifically advanced institutions in the U.S, Europe and Japan, some can also be attributed to China’s growing efforts at “indigenous innovation,” described below. The diffusion model, insofar as it connotes flows from core to periphery, does not adequately capture the complexity of China’s rising share of global scientific productivity.
Chinese publications have grown rapidly in quantity, whether one looks at nanotechnology only (Youtie et al. 2008), or at science in general (Kostoff et al. 2007). Indeed, the data used for the current study (described in “Data” section) show that China’s nanotechnology research output (as measured by the quantity of publications in ISI-listed journals) surpassed that of Japan in 2002, and even that of the US in 2008. Robust upwards trends in the research output of other East Asian economies—particularly Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, have also been reported for some time now (Kostoff et al. 2006b).
There is bibliometric evidence on this. While the quantity of publications by Chinese authors grew rapidly, quality has lagged (Kostoff et al. 2006b), but has recently begun to turn around (Youtie et al. 2008); and the productivity of Chinese Science and Technology researchers is low (OECD, p. 332).
Our analysis certainly will not resolve these debates. Our point here is only that the political heat generated by China’s scientific surge motivates a more thorough search for the proper understanding of these trends.
These shares would need to be adjusted so they add up to one if our objective were to present a sense of the changing distribution of effort or some notion of power. However, given that we are interested in international collaboration, the unadjusted figures provide a direct sense of national involvement, which will be useful for putting the growth of international collaboration rates in context.
It should be noted that even while the shares of papers involving the authors from the US, EU and Japan decreased, the total number of papers from each increased (not shown, in the interests of brevity).
Recall that papers produced by scientists in multiple EU countries are considered internationally collaborative.
One important caveat: By construction, all internationally collaborative papers involving country c enter the numerator when calculating country c’s international collaboration rate, and no internationally collaborative papers involving country c are counted towards the rest of the world’s international collaboration rate. Thus, we systematically underestimate the international collaboration gap, and therefore the contribution of diffusion effects towards less internationally collaborative countries to slowing international collaboration.
Estimates of the number of nanotechnology researchers by country and year seem to be unavailable.
This trend towards Chinese language publication is not limited to nanotechnology (e.g., Valkimadi et al. 2009).
For a review of some of these concerns, see Appelbaum and Parker (2012b).
References
Aksnes, D. W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12(3), 159–170. doi:10.3152/147154403781776645.
Aksnes, D. W. (2006). Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 169–185. doi:10.1002/asi.20262.
Appelbaum, R. P., & Parker, R. A. (2008). China’s bid to become a global nanotech leader: advancing nanotechnology through state-led programs and international collaborations. Science & Public Policy (SPP), 35(5), 319–334. doi:10.3152/030234208x319366.
Appelbaum, R. P., & Parker, R. A. ( 2012a). China’s move to high-tech innovation: some regional policy implications. In C. Dent & J. Dosch (Eds.), The Asia-pacific regionalism and the global system. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Appelbaum, R. P., & Parker, R. A. (2012b). The Chinese century? Some policy implications of China’s move to high-tech innovation. In B. Harthorn & J. Mohr (Eds.), The social life of nanotechnology. New York: Routledge.
Bai, C. (2005). Ascent of nanoscience in China. Science, 309(5731), 61–63. doi:10.1126/science.1115172.
Braun, T., Zsindely, S., Dióspatonyi, I., & Zádor, E. (2007). Gatekeeping patterns in nano-titled journals. Scientometrics, 70(3), 651–667. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0306-2.
Breznitz, D., & Murphree, M. (2011). Run of the red queen: Government, innovation, globalization and economic growth in China. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cabinet Office of the Japanese Government. (2000). Second basic plan for science and technology (2001–2005).
Chenery, H., Robinson, S., & Syrquin, M. (1986). Industrialization and economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dang, Y., Zhang, Y., Fan, L., Chen, H., & Roco, M. C. (2010). Trends in worldwide nanotechnology patent applications: 1991 to 2008. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(3), 687–706.
Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38(2), 293–305.
Glanzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.
Glanzel, W., Meyer, M., du Plessis, B., Magerman, T., Schlemmer, B., Debackere, K., et al. (2003). Nanotechnology: Analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavour. Leuven: Steunpunt O&O Statistieken.
Huang, C., Notten, A., & Rasters, N. (2008). Nanotechnology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies (UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series).
Kostoff, R. N. (1998). The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation—Comments on theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43(1), 27–43.
Kostoff, R. N., Briggs, M. B., Rushenberg, R. L., Bowles, C. A., Icenhour, A. S., Nikodym, K. F., et al. (2007). Chinese science and technology—Structure and infrastructure. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(9), 1539–1573. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2007.02.008.
Kostoff, R., Murday, J., Lau, C., & Tolles, W. (2006a). The seminal literature of nanotechnology research. J Nanopart Res(8), 193–213. doi:10.1007/s11051-005-9034-9.
Kostoff, R. N., Stump, J. A., Johnson, D., Murday, J. S., Lau, C. G. Y., & Tolles, W. M. (2006b). The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(3–4), 301–321. doi:10.1007/s11051-005-9035-8.
Lenoir, T., & Herron, P. (2009). Tracking the current rise of Chinese pharmaceutical bionanotechnology. Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration, 4(8).
Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 317–325.
Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3), 693–713. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0308-0.
Lin, M.-W., & Zhang, J. (2007). Language trends in nanoscience and technology: The case of Chinese-language publications. Scientometrics, 70(3), 555–564. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0302-6.
Liu, F., Simon, D. F., Sun, Y., & Cao, C. (2011). China’s innovation policies: Evolution, institutional structure, and trajectory. Research Policy, 4(8), 917–931.
McGregor, J. (2009). China’s drive for ‘indigenous innovation’: A web of industrial policies. Washington DC: U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Mogoutov, A., & Kahane, B. (2007). Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking. Research Policy, 36(6), 893–903. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.005.
Noyons, E., Buter, R., van Raan, A., Schmoch, U., Heinze, T., Hinze, S., et al. (2003). Mapping excellence in science and technology across Europe (Part 2: Nanoscience and nanotechnology). Draft report of project EC-PPN CT-2002-0001 to the European Commission.
NSB. (2010). Science and engineering indicators. Washington DC: National Science Board.
NSB. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012 (pp. Chapter 3, Global S&E Workforce). Washington DC: National Science Board.
OECD. (2008). Reviews of innovation policy: China. Paris: OECD Publications.
Onel, S., Zeid, A., & Kamarthi, S. (2011). The structure and analysis of nanotechnology co-author and citation networks. Scientometrics, 89(1), 119–138. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0434-6.
Porter, A., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.
Pouris, A. (2007). Nanoscale research in South Africa: A mapping exercise based on scientometrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 541–553. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0301-7.
Ren, S., & Rousseau, R. (2002). International visibility of Chinese scientific journals. Scientometrics, 53(3), 389–405. doi:10.1023/a:1014877130166.
Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2010). Follow the money. Nature, 468(7324), 627–628.
Simon, D. F., & Cao, C. (2009). China’s emerging technological edge: Assessing the role of high-end talent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stichweh, R. (1996). Science in the system of world society. Social Science Information, 35(2), 327–340.
Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2011). Regional development and interregional collaboration in the growth of nanotechnology research in China. Scientometrics, 86(2), 299–315. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0274-9.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (2010). Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Valkimadi, P. E., Karageorgopoulos, D. E., Vliagoftis, H., & Falagas, M. E. (2009). Increasing dominance of English in publications archived by PubMed. Scientometrics, 81(1), 219–223. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2139-z.
Wagner, C. S. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005a). Mapping global science using international co-authorship: A comparison of 1990 and 2000. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(2), 185–208.
Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005b). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34, 1608–1618.
Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Porter, A. L. (2008). Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(6), 981–986. doi:10.1007/s11051-008-9360-9.
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. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2006.03.016.
Acknowledgment
The authors are indebted to Cong Cao for his excellent comments on an early draft of this paper, and to Quinn McCreight and Aisa Villanueva for superb research assistance. All errors are our own. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES 0531184. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. This study was conducted under the auspices of the University of California at Santa Barbara Center for Nanotechnology in Society (www.cns.ucsb.edu).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Nanotechnology-specific query terms (Kostoff et. al 2006a)
‘‘NANOPARTICLE* OR NANOTUB* OR NANOSTRUCTURE* OR NANOCOMPOSITE* OR NANOWIRE* OR NANOCRYSTAL* OR NANOFIBER* OR NANOFIBRE* OR NANOSPHERE* OR NANOROD* OR NANOTECHNOLOG* OR NANOCLUSTER* OR NANOCAPSULE* OR NANOMATERIAL* OR NANOFABRICAT* OR NANOPOR* OR NANOPARTICULATE* OR NANOPHASE OR NANOPOWDER* OR NANOLITHOGRAPHY OR NANO-PARTICLE* OR NANODEVICE*OR NANODOT* OR NANOINDENT* OR NANOLAYER* OR NANOSCIENCE OR NANOSIZE* OR NANOSCALE* OR ((NM OR NANOMETER* OR NANOMETRE*) AND (SURFACE* OR FILM* OR GRAIN* OR POWDER* OR SILICON OR DEPOSITIONOR LAYER* OR DEVICE* OR CLUSTER* OR CRYSTAL* OR MATERIAL* OR ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOP* OR TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOP* OR SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOP*)) OR QUANTUM DOT* OR QUANTUM WIRE* OR ((SELF-ASSEMBL* OR SELF-ORGANIZ*) AND (MONOLAYER* OR FILM* OR NANO*.
OR QUANTUM* OR LAYER* OR MULTILAYER* OR ARRAY*)) OR NANOELECTROSPRAY* OR COULOMB BLOCKADE* OR MOLECULAR WIRE*’’.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mehta, A., Herron, P., Motoyama, Y. et al. Globalization and de-globalization in nanotechnology research: the role of China. Scientometrics 93, 439–458 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0687-8
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0687-8