In this paper we compare the scientific research in the semiconductor-related field in China with some other major nations
in Asia. It is based on the bibliometric information from SCI-Expanded database during the time period of 1995–2004. We show
that China has been developing fast in semiconductor research, and become the second productive country in Asia as reflected
by the publication profile. The evidences indicate a significant increasing trend in the research efforts and readership among
Asian countries. Similar to the scientists in Japan and South Korea, Chinese scientists were more inclined to work in larger
groups, typically 4 or more authors. The assessment of research quality is further conducted based on citation-based measures.
As benchmarks, two western countries, namely USA and Germany, have been compared in the citation analysis. It is revealed
that the impacts of research outputs in the Asian countries, except for Japan, have been badly incommensurate with their devoted
research efforts compared with USA and Germany. Like most of other Asian countries the research results of Chinese scientists
in semiconductor have a low international visibility despite their strong research efforts and increasingly large domestic
readership. The application of Leimkuhler curve illustrates vividly the inequality of citation times among the compared countries.
Furthermore, the Gini Indices of each country and each pair of countries are calculated which illustrates again the inequality
of informetric productivities.
This study explored the evolution of nanotechnology based on a mapping of patent applications. Citations among patent applications
designated to the European Patent Office were intensively analysed. Approximately 4300 nanotechnology patent applications
linked through citations were mapped. Fifteen domains of nanotechnology patent applications were found in the map in 2003.
The domains cover a wide range of application fields; they are domains related to measurement and manufacturing; electronics;
optoelectronics; biotechnology; and nano materials. Maps in several reference years registered the evolution of nanotechnology,
where the breadth of application fields has been broadening over time. Direct and indirect knowledge flows among different
domains of nanotechnology are seemingly small at the present. Each domain of nanotechnology is likely pushing the technological
frontier within its own domain. The exception is sensing and actuating technologies on the nanometre scale. Direct and indirect
knowledge flows to/from this domain describe their vital role in nanotechnology. Countries’ specialisation was also analysed.
Patent applications from the United States and the European Union cover a wide range of nanotechnology. Inventive activities
in Japan are, however, strongly focusing on electronics. Intensive knowledge creation in specific technologies was found in
Switzerland and Korea.
International collaboration is becoming an increasingly significant issue in science. During the last few years, a large number
of bibliometric studies of co-authorships have been reported. Mostly, these studies have concentrated on country-to-country
collaboration, revealing general patterns of interaction. In this study we analyze international collaborative patterns as
indicated in the Indian publications by tracking out multi author publications as given in Science Citation Index (SCI) database.
Correspondence analysis is used for analysis and interpretation of the results.
According to correspondence analysis of the data set, Physics, Chemistry, Clinical medicine are the first, second and third
largest subjects having international collaboration. USA, Italy, Germany, France, England are the top five countries with
which India is collaborating. The data set shows an association between Physics and Italy, Switzerland, Algeria, Finland,
South Korea, Russia, Netherlands contrasting an association between Biology & Biochemistry, Immunology, Ecology & Environment,
Geosciences, Multidisciplinary subjects and England, Japan, Canada. It also shows an association between Agriculture and Philippines,
Canada, Denmark in contrast to an association between Chemistry and Malaysia, Germany, France. An association between Clinical
medicine, Astrophysics and England, Sweden, USA, New Zealand in contrast to an association between Agriculture and Canada,
Philippines, Denmark is shown. An association between Engineering, Mathematics, Computer Science, Neuroscience and Singapore,
Canada, USA in contrast to an association between Chemistry, Astrophysics and Malaysia, Spain is shown. This association of
collaborating countries and disciplines almost tallies with the publication productivity of these countries in different disciplines.
Authors:Byungun Yoon, Sungjoo Lee, and Gwanghee Lee
With the growing recognition of the importance of knowledge creation, knowledge maps are being regarded as a critical tool
for successful knowledge management. However, the various methods of developing knowledge maps mostly depend on unsystematic
processes and the judgment of domain experts with a wide range of untapped information. Thus, this research aims to propose
a new approach to generate knowledge maps by mining document databases that have hardly been examined, thereby enabling an
automatic development process and the extraction of significant implications from the maps. To this end, the accepted research
proposal database of the Korea Research Foundation (KRF), which includes a huge knowledge repository of research, is investigated
for inducing a keyword-based knowledge map. During the developmental process, text mining plays an important role in extracting
meaningful information from documents, and network analysis is applied to visualize the relations between research categories
and measure the value of network indices. Five types of knowledge maps (core R&D map, R&D trend map, R&D concentration map,
R&D relation map, and R&D cluster map) are developed to explore the main research themes, monitor research trends, discover
relations between R&D areas, regions, and universities, and derive clusters of research categories. The results can be used
to establish a policy to support promising R&D areas and devise a long-term research plan.
Authors:Lutz Bornmann, Irina Nast, and Hans-Dieter Daniel
The case of Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean stem-cell researcher, is arguably the highest profile case in the history
of research misconduct. The discovery of Dr. Hwang’s fraud led to fierce criticism of the peer review process (at Science). To find answers to the question of why the journal peer review system did not detect scientific misconduct (falsification
or fabrication of data) not only in the Hwang case but also in many other cases, an overview is needed of the criteria that
editors and referees normally consider when reviewing a manuscript. Do they at all look for signs of scientific misconduct
when reviewing a manuscript? We conducted a quantitative content analysis of 46 research studies that examined editors’ and
referees’ criteria for the assessment of manuscripts and their grounds for accepting or rejecting manuscripts. The total of
572 criteria and reasons from the 46 studies could be assigned to nine main areas: (1) ‘relevance of contribution,’ (2) ‘writing
/ presentation,’ (3) ‘design / conception,’ (4) ‘method / statistics,’ (5) ‘discussion of results,’ (6) ‘reference to the
literature and documentation,’ (7) ‘theory,’ (8) ‘author’s reputation / institutional affiliation,’ and (9) ‘ethics.’ None of the criteria or reasons that were assigned to the nine main areas refers to or is related to possible falsification or
fabrication of data. In a second step, the study examined what main areas take on high and low significance for editors and
referees in manuscript assessment. The main areas that are clearly related to the quality of the research underlying a manuscript
emerged in the analysis frequently as important: ‘theory,’ ‘design / conception’ and ‘discussion of results.’
Authors:Wolfgang Glänzel, Koenraad Debackere, and Martin Meyer
The US-EU race for world leadership in science and technology has become the favourite subject of recent studies. Studies
issued by the European Commission reported the increase of the European share in the world’s scientific production and announced
world leadership of the EU in scientific output at the end of the last century. In order to be able to monitor those types
of global changes, the present study is based on the 15-year period 1991–2005. A set of bibliometric and technometric indicators
is used to analyse activity and impact patterns in science and technology output. This set comprises publication output indicators
such as (1) the share in the world total, (2) subject-based publication profiles, (3) citation-based indicators like journal-and
subject-normalised mean citation rates, (4) international co-publications and their impact as well as (5) patent indicators
and publication-patent citation links (both directions). The evolution of national bibliometric profiles, ‘scientific weight’
and science-technology linkage patterns are discussed as well.
The authors show, using the mirror of science and technology indicators, that the triad model does no longer hold in the 21st century. China is challenging the leading sciento-economic powers and the time is approaching when this country will represent
the world’s second largest potential in science and technology. China and other emerging scientific nations like South Korea,
Taiwan, Brazil and Turkey are already changing the balance of power as measured by scientific production, as they are at least
in part responsible for the relative decline of the former triad.
The term “European Paradox” describes the perceived failure of the EU to capture full benefits of its leadership of science
as measured by publications and some other indicators. This paper investigates what might be called the “American Paradox,”
the decline in scientific publication share of the U.S. despite world-leading investments in research and development (R&D)
— particularly as that decline has accelerated in recent years. A multiple linear regression analysis was made of which inputs
to the scientific enterprise are most strongly correlated with the number of scientific papers produced. Research investment
was found to be much more significant than labor input, government investment in R&D was much more significant than that by
industry, and government non-defense investment was somewhat more significant than its defense investment. Since the EU actually
leads the U.S. in this key component, this could account for gradual loss of U.S. paper share and EU assumption of leadership
of scientific publication in the mid-1990s. More recently the loss of U.S. share has accelerated, and three approaches analyzed
this phenomenon: (1) A companion paper shows that the SCI database has not significantly changed to be less favorable to the
U.S.; thus the decline is real and is not an artifact of the measurement methods. (2) Budgets of individual U.S. research
agencies were correlated with overall paper production and with papers in their disciplines. Funding for the U.S. government
civilian, non-healthcare sector was flat in the last ten years, resulting in declining share of papers. Funding for its healthcare
sector sharply increased, but there were few additional U.S. healthcare papers. While this inefficiency contributes to loss
of U.S. share, it is merely a specific example of the general syndrome that increased American investments have not produced
increased publication output. (3) In fact the decline in publication share appears to be due to rapidly increasing R&D investments
by China, Taiwan, S. Korea, and Singapore. A model shows that in recent years it is a country’s share of world investment that is most predictive of its publication share. While the U.S. has increased its huge R&D investment, its investment share still declined because of even more rapidly increasing
investments by these Asian countries. This has likely led to their sharply increased share of scientific publication, which
must result in declines of shars of others — the U.S. and more recently, the EU.