Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interdisciplinary information input and output of a nano-technology project

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The input and output information of a national project of Japan for nano-technology will be analysed. In 1996 Japanese government stipulated a guideline to evaluate national technology projects on economic criteria as well as technological ones. In addition to the criteria intrinsic to economy but extrinsic to technology and unfriendly to technologists, however, another view more intrinsic to technology may be useful as well. This study will attempt to complement the governmentally stipulated evaluation method with a bibliometric one. Considering the interdisciplinary approach as a merit of national projects, this study will analyse how interdisciplinary information was used as input and was published as output by the project. Focussing on the publication behaviours of the project, information flow from technology to science or a development pattern of science pulled by technology will be discussed. Finally, the matching of the evaluation criteria to technology development and the friendliness of evaluation methods to technologists will be discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. C. ADUCKIA, J. GOMEZ, Y. J. GOMEZ, Bibliometric output from Colombian researchers with approved projects by COLCIENCIAS between 1983 and 1994. Scientometrics, 48 (2000) 3-25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. K. J. ARROW, The economic learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 29 (1962) 155-173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. F. M. BATOR, The anatomy of market failure. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 72 (1958) 351-379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. J. E. BIRD, Authorship patterns in marine mammal science. Scientometrics, 39 (1997) 99-105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. W. J. BOUMOL, T. FABIAN, Decomposition, pricing for decentralization and external economies. Management Science, 11 (1964) 1-32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. T. BRAUN, A. SCHUBERT, S. ZSINDELY, Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38 (1997) 321-325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. B. C. BROOKES. Bradford's law and the bibliography of science. Nature, 244 (1969) 953-956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. S. J. CUNNINGHAM, S. M. DILLON, Authorship patterns in information systems. Scientometrics, 39 (1997) 19-27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. H. ETO, Prudence of science and technology policies: A historical review. In: H. ETO (Ed), R&D Strategies in Japan – The National, Regional and Corporate Approach, Chapter 11, pp. 225-296, Elsevier, Amsterdam. 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  10. H. ETO, Rising tail in Bradford distribution: Its interpretation and application. Scientometrics, 13 (1988) 263-279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. H. ETO, Authorship and citation patterns in operational research journals in relation to competition and reform. Scientometrics, 47 (2000) 25-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. H. ETO, Bibliometric distance between methodology and application in statistics. Scientometrics, 48 (2000) 85-97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. H. ETO, Authorship and citation patterns in Management Science in comparison with operationaL research. Scientometrics, 53 (2002) 337-340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. H. ETO, The suitability of technology forecasting/foresight methods for decision systems and strategy. A Japanese view. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70 (2003) 231-249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. H. ETO, K. MAKINO. Stochastic model for innovation and resulting skew distribution for technological concentration with verification in Japanese industry. Scientometrics, 5 (1983) 219-243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. H. ETO, K. MAKINO, Theoretical and empirical analysis of differentiation process in technology gap between developed and developing nations. In: W. ISARD, Y. NAGAO (Eds), International and Regional Conflict: Analytical Approaches, Chapter 9, pp. 149-159, Ballinger Pub. Co., Cambridge, Mass. 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. C. GARG, P. PADHI, A study of collaboration in laser science and laser technology. Scientometrics, 51 (2001) 415-427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. B. M. GUPTA, Analysis of distribution of the age of citation in theoretical population genetics. Scientometrics, 40 (1997) 139-162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. B. M. GUPTA, C. R. KARISIDDAPPA, Author productivity patterns in theoretical population genetics speciality. Scientometrics, 36 (1997) 59-68.

    Google Scholar 

  20. B. M. GUPTA, C. R. KARISIDDAPPA, Collaboration in theoretical population genetics speciality. Scientometrics, 42 (1998) 349-376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. GYOSEI-KAIKAKU IINKAI (Committee for Administration Reform), Gyosei kanyo no arikata ni kansuru kijun (Standard for commitment of administration). 1996.

  22. J. DE HAAN, Authorship patterns in Dutch sociology. Scientometrics, 39 (1997) 197-208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. S. D. HAITUN, Stationary scientometric distributions, Part II. The non-Gaussian nature of scientific activities. Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 89-104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. S. D. HAITUN, Stationary scientometric distributions, Part III. The role of Zipf distribution. Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 181-194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. KAWATETSU TECHNO-REESAEARCH KABUSHIKI KAISHA (Kawasaki Steel Techno-Research Corp.), Kenkyu-kaihatsu project no chiteki seika-butsu ni kakawaru teiryoteki hyoka shuho ni kansuru chosa (Study of quantitative evaluation methods concerning intellectual results of R&D projects). Tokyo. 2002.

  26. M. MEYER, Patent citations in a novel field of technology. What can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology? Scientometrics, 48 (2000) 151-178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. M. MEYER, Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29 (2000) 409-434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. M. MEYER. Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nano science and nano technology. Scientometrics, 51 (2001) 163-183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. M. MEYER, O. PERSSON. Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42 (1998) 195-205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. F. NARIN, D. OLIVASTRO, Linkage between patents and papers: An interim EPO/US comparison. Scientometrics, 41 (1998) 51-59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. G. P. O. NEILL, Authorship patterns in theory based versus research based journals. Scientometrics, 41 (1998) 291-298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. P. PICHAPPAN, S. SARASVADY, The other side of the coin: The intricacies of author-selfcitations. Scientometrics, 54 ( 2002) 285-290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. D. J. DE SOLLA PRICE, Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press. 1963.

  34. E. J. RINIA, T. N. VAN LEEUWEN, E. E. W. BRUINS, H. G. VAN VUREN, A. F. J. VAN RAAN, Citation delays in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange. Scientometrics 51 (2001) 293-309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. R. ROUSSEAU, Temporal differences in self-citation rates of scientific journals. Scientometrics, 44 (1999) 521-531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. P. A. SAMUELSON, The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36 (1954) 387-390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. S. L. SANOGAM, Obsolescence of literature in the field of psychology. Scientometrics, 41 (1998) 33-46.

    Google Scholar 

  38. U. SCHMOCH, Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 193-211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. U. SCHMOCH, Indicators and the relations between science and technology. Scientometrics, 38 (1997) 103-116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. R. TAGLIACOZZO, Self-citations in scientific literature. Journal of Documentation, 33 (1977) 251-265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. B. VAN VIAENEN, H. MOED, A. VAN RAAN, An exploration of the science base of recent technology. Research Policy, 19 (1990) 61-81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. A. VERBEEK, K. DEBACKERE, M. LUWEL, P. ANDRIES, E. ZIMMERMANN, F. DELEUS, Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes. Scientometrics, 54 (2002) 399-420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Chiba Keizai University, Todoroki, Inage-ku, Chiba-shi, 263-0021, Japan

    Hajime Eto

Authors
  1. Hajime Eto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eto, H. Interdisciplinary information input and output of a nano-technology project. Scientometrics 58, 5–33 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025423406643

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025423406643

Keywords

Search

Navigation