Abstract
This paper presents methods using a large number of quantitative indicators of the overall estimation of national S&T activity. The methods collected here apply multivariate analysis techniques to a set of S&T indicators to investigate its structure and extract a single or a small number of indicators of S&T activity. We perform structural analysis and integration of 14 main S&T indicators in 5 countries, the U.S., Japan, Germany, France and the U.K. Latent variables underlying this set of indicators naturally emerge from this analysis, and from these we were able to extract valuable information concerning the nature of S&T activity in each country. This method was also useful for investigating the nature and interpretation, as well as the reliability, of previous S&T indicators.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes and References
OECD,Frascati manual 1993: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental Development, The 5th edition, 1994.
A. F. J. Van Raan, (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, (1988).
F. Kodama, F. Niwa, Structure Analysis of the Japanese Science and Technology Indicator System and its Evaluation,Journal of Science Policy & Research Management, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1987).
H. Grupp, On the supplementary functions of science and technology indicators: The case of West German telecommunications research and development,Scientometrics, Vol. 19, No. 5-6, (1990) 447–472.
F. R. Pfetsch, The measurement of a country scientific and technological potential,Scientometrics, Vol. 19, No. 5-6, (1990) 495–504.
R. E. Evenson, Patents, R&D, and Invention Potential: International Evidence,American Economic Review, Vol. 83, No. 2 (1993) 463–468.
Z. Griliches, Productivity, R&D, and the Data Constraint,American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 1 (1994) 1–23.
H. Grupp, U. Schmoch, U. Kuntze, Patents as potential indicators of the utility of EC research programmers,Scientometrics, Vol. 21, No. 3, (1991) 417–445.
National Science Board (U.S.),Science and Engineering Indicators — 1991, 1992.
National Science Board (U.S.),Science and Engineering Indicators — 1993, 1994.
National Institute of Science and Technology Policy,Science and Technology Indicators: 1994, (NISTEP Report No. 37), 1995.
OECD,Main Science and Technology Indicators.
Institute for Scientific Information,National Science Indicators Database: 1981–1994, 1995.
World Intellectual Property Organization,Industrial Property, Statistics.
CHI Research Inc.,International Technology Indicators database, 1995.
Specifically, for example, it was regarded that the citation count in 1981 was proportional to the 5 year value from 1981 to 1985, and was obtained by the same method as the other years.
The counts of citations for each country were extrapolate using past increase rate respectively.
The total counts of citations were extrapolated from past values, and the counts for each country were obtained by dividing the total counts by the patent grant share of each country in the U.S.
S. D. Haitun, The problem of indicator-latent relationship in metric models. Part 1. Statement and general solution.Scientometrics, Vol. 23, No. 2, (1992) 335–351.
S. D. Haitun, The problem of indicator-latent relationship in metric models. Part 2. Metric models with a priory latent assignment.Scientometrics, Vol. 23, No. 2, (1992) 221–236.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Niwa, F., Tomizawa, H. A trial of general indicator of science and technology: Methodological study of overall estimation of national S&T activity. Scientometrics 37, 245–265 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093623
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093623