Seismology has several features that suggest it is a highly internationalized field: the subject matter is global, the tools
used to analyse seismic waves are dependent upon information technologies, and governments are interested in funding cooperative
research. We explore whether an emerging field like seismology has a more internationalised structure than the older, related
field of geophysics. Using aggregated journal-journal citations, we first show that, within the citing environment, seismology
emerged from within geophysics as its own field in the 1990s. The bibliographic analysis, however, does not show that seismology
is more internationalised than geophysics: in 2000, seismology had a lower percentage of all articles co-authored on an international
basis. Nevertheless, social network analysis shows that the core group of cooperating countries within seismology is proportionately
larger and more distributed than that within geophysics. While the latter exhibits an established network with a hierarchy,
the formation of a field in terms of new partnership relations is ongoing in seismology.
University patenting has been heralded as a symbol of changing relations between universities and their social environments.
The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 in the USA was eagerly promoted by the OECD as a recipe for the commercialization of university
research, and the law was imitated by a number of national governments. However, since the 2000s university patenting in the
most advanced economies has been on the decline both as a percentage and in absolute terms. In addition to possible saturation
effects and institutional learning, we suggest that the institutional incentives for university patenting have disappeared
with the new regime of university ranking. Patents and spin-offs are not counted in university rankings. In the new arrangements
of university–industry–government relations, universities have become very responsive to changes in their relevant environments.
Summary Institutions and their aggregates are not the right units of analysis for developing a science policy with cognitive goals in view. Institutions, however, can be compared in terms of their performance with reference to their previous stages. King's (2004) 'The scientific impact of nations' has provided the data for this comparison. Evaluation of the data from this perspective along the time axis leads to completely different and hitherto overlooked conclusions: a new dynamic can be revealed which points to a group of emerging nations. These nations do not increase their contributions marginally, but their national science systems grow endogenously. In addition to publications, their citation rates keep pace with the exponential growth patterns, albeit with a delay. The center of gravity of the world system of science may be changing accordingly.
In reaction to a previous critique (Opthof and Leydesdorff, J Informetr 4(3):423–430, ), the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) in Leiden proposed to change their old “crown” indicator in citation analysis into a new one. Waltman (Scientometrics 87:467–481, ) argue that this change does not affect rankings at various aggregated levels. However, CWTS data is not publicly available for testing and criticism. Therefore, we comment by using previously published data of Van Raan (Scientometrics 67(3):491–502, to address the pivotal issue of how the results of citation analysis correlate with the results of peer review. A quality parameter based on peer review was neither significantly correlated with the two parameters developed by the CWTS in the past citations per paper/mean journal citation score (CPP/JCSm) or CPP/FCSm (citations per paper/mean field citation score) nor with the more recently proposed h-index (Hirsch, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(46):16569–16572, ). Given the high correlations between the old and new “crown” indicators, one can expect that the lack of correlation with the peer-review based quality indicator applies equally to the newly developed ones.
The Journal Citation Reports of the Science Citation Index 2004 were used to delineate a core set of nanotechnology journals and a nanotechnology-relevant
set. In comparison with 2003, the core set has grown and the relevant set has decreased. This suggests a higher degree of
codification in the field of nanotechnology: the field has become more focused in terms of citation practices. Using the citing
patterns among journals at the aggregate level, a core group of ten nanotechnology journals in the vector space can be delineated
on the criterion of betweenness centrality. National contributions to this core group of journals are evaluated for the years
2003, 2004, and 2005. Additionally, the specific class of nanotechnology patents in the database of the U. S. Patent and Trade
Office (USPTO) is analyzed to determine if non-patent literature references can be used as a source for the delineation of
the knowledge base in terms of scientific journals. The references are primarily to general science journals and letters,
and therefore not specific enough for the purpose of delineating a journal set.
This article explores the emergence of knowledge from scientific discoveries and their effects on the structure of scientific
communication. Network analysis is applied to understand this emergence institutionally as changes in the journals; semantically
as changes in the codification of meaning in terms of words; and cognitively as the new knowledge becomes the emergent foundation
of further developments. The discovery of fullerenes in 1985 is analyzed as the scientific discovery that triggered a process
which led to research in nanotubes.
We present a model to assess the systemness of an innovation system. Patent and citation datawith an institutional address in Catalonia (1986-1996) were analyzed in terms of relationallinkages and the development in these distributions over time was evaluated using methods fromsystems dynamics. Relational linkages are extremely scarce. A transition at the system's levelcould be indicated around 1990 when using institutional addresses, but not when using cognitivecategories. The institutional restructuring has led to changes in the pattern of linkages(coauthorship, etc.), but the reproduction of the system's knowledge base has remaineddifferentiated. We conclude that although a system in several other respects, Catalonia cannot(yet) be considered as a (knowledge-based) innovation system. The existence of a mechanism forthe integration could not be indicated at the regional level.
Authors:Ki-Seok Kwon, Han Woo Park, Minho So, and Loet Leydesdorff
We trace the structural patterns of co-authorship between Korean researchers at three institutional types (university, government, and industry) and their international partners in terms of the mutual information generated in these relations. Data were collected from the Web of Science during the period 1968–2009. The traditional Triple-Helix indicator was modified to measure the evolving network of co-authorship relations. The results show that international co-authorship relations have varied considerably over time and with changes in government policies, but most relations have become stable since the early 2000s. In other words, the national publication system of Korea has gained some synergy from R&D internationalization during the 1990s, but the development seems to stagnate particularly at the national level: whereas both university and industrial collaborations are internationalized, the cross-connection within Korea has steadily eroded.
Authors:Han Woo Park, Heung Deug Hong, and Loet Leydesdorff
Summary This paper elaborates on the Triple Helix model for measuring the emergence of a knowledge base of socio-economic systems. The ‘knowledge infrastructure’ is measured using multiple indicators: webometric, scientometric, and technometric. The paper employs this triangulation strategy to examine the current state of the innovation systems of South Korea and the Netherlands. These indicators are thereafter used for the evaluation of the systemness in configurations of university-industry-government relations. South Korea is becoming somewhat stronger than the Netherlands in terms of scientific and technological outputs and in terms of the knowledge-based dynamics; South Korea’s portfolio is more traditional than that of the Netherlands. For example, research and patenting in the biomedical sector is underdeveloped. In terms of the Internet-economy, the Netherlands seem oriented towards global trends more than South Korea; this may be due to the high component of services in the Dutch economy.