Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring the contributions of Chinese scholars to the research field of systems biology from 2005 to 2013

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Systems biology is a new field of biology that has great implications for agriculture, medicine, and sustainability. In this article we explore the contributions of Chinese authors to systems biology through analysis of the metadata of more than 9000 articles on systems biology. Our big-data approach includes scientometric analysis, GIS analysis, co-word network analysis, and comparative analysis. By 2013 China has become second in the number of publications on systems biology. Similar to previous studies on Chinese science, we find an unequal distribution of research power in China, favoring big cities and coastal cities. Overall, 75% of the articles in systems biology were published by scholars from universities, 15% by scholars from the Chinese of Academy of Sciences institutions, and 9% from other institutions. Many Chinese scholars’ research topics are similar to those in the US, Japan, and Germany, but one salient difference is that traditional Chinese medicine is an important topic among Chinese systems biologists. 25% of Chinese systems biologists cooperate with scientists abroad, suggesting that they take advantage of the opening-up policy. From the year 2011–2013, the average impact factor of the journals that Chinese scholars publish in is generally lower than that of their counterparts in the US, but the trend points to a gradual increase in impact.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the rankings of more countries, see http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php.

  2. For more information about the personnel and finances of the Max Planck Institute, see https://www.mpg.de/facts-and-figures.

  3. For more information about this tool, see http://www.affymetrix.com/catalog/131492/AFFY/Rat+Genome+230+2.0+Array#1_1.

References

  • Barrett, C. L., Kim, T. Y., Kim, H. U., Palsson, B. Ø., & Lee, S. Y. (2006). Systems biology as a foundation for genome-scale synthetic biology. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 17(5), 488–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callebaut, W. (2012). Scientific perspectivism: A philosopher of science’s response to the challenge of big data biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(1), 69–80.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinese Academy of Sciences. (2014). Annual budget of Chinese academy of sciences. Available at http://www.cas.cn/xxgkml/zgkxyyb/czjf/ysjs/201407/P020140718685723194826.pdf. (Accessed Dec 1, 2016).

  • Church, G. M. (2005). From systems biology to synthetic biology. Molecular Systems Biology, 1(1):E1–E2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlman, C. J., & Aubert, J. E. (2001). China and the knowledge economy: Seizing the 21st century. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Biology Journal, 22(2), 338–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science. Science, 122(3159), 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. W. (2014). Conceptualizing the interdisciplinary diffusion and evolution of emerging fields: The case of systems biology. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Google. (2016). Google fusion table web page. Available online:  https://fusiontables.google.com/data?dsrcid=implicit. (Accessed Dec 1, 2016).

  • He, Q. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends, 48(1), 133–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, T., Zhang, J., & Teng, L. (2005). Basic research in biochemistry and molecular biology in China: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 62(2), 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, L. (2003). Systems biology: Integrating technology, biology, and computation. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, 124(1), 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, L., Heath, J. R., Phelps, M. E., & Lin, B. (2004). Systems biology and new technologies enable predictive and preventative medicine. Science, 306(5696), 640–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, X., & Rousseau, R. (2015). From a word to a world: The current situation in the interdisciplinary field of synthetic biology. PeerJ, 3, e728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, T., & Sun, W. (2013). Tuberculosis in China. Journal of Tuberculosis Research, 1(02), 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., Rozelle, S., Pray, C., & Wang, Q. (2002). Plant biotechnology in China. Science, 295(5555), 674–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. (2001). Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409(6822), 860–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lao, Y. M., Jiang, J. G., & Yan, L. (2009). Application of metabonomic analytical techniques in the modernization and toxicology research of traditional Chinese medicine. British Journal of Pharmacology, 157(7), 1128–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. A. (2011). Poverty and obesity in the US. Diabetes, 60(11), 2667–2668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303–1319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Zhi, T. (2010). China is catching up in science and innovation: The experience of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Science and Public Policy, 37(5), 331–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China (MSTPRC). (2014). National science and technology funding statistics bulletin. http://www.most.gov.cn/tztg/201410/t20141030_116370.htm.

  • Nature Publishing Group. (2015). Turning point: Chinese science in transition. London: Nature Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, J. (2007). China plans to modernize traditional medicine. Nature, 446(7136), 590–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russ-Eft, D. (2008). SSCI, ISI, JCR, JIF, IF, and journal quality. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(3), 185–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, P., Markiel, A., Ozier, O., Baliga, N. S., Wang, J. T., Ramage, D., et al. (2003). Cytoscape: A software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Research, 13(11), 2498–2504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • State Council of China. (2006). National guidelines on the planning of midterm and long term development of science and technology (2006 to 2020). http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2006/content_240244.htm.

  • Su, H. N., & Lee, P. C. (2010). Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics, 85(1), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: The Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L. (2016). The structure and comparative advantages of China’s scientific research: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Scientometrics, 106(1), 435–452.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Wu, Y., Pan, Y., Ma, Z., & Rousseau, R. (2005). Scientific collaboration in China as reflected in co-authorship. Scientometrics, 62(2), 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Xiao, J., Zhang, R., & Yu, J. (2011). DNA sequencing leads to genomics progress in China. Science China Life Sciences, 54(3), 290–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xue, L. (2008). China: The prizes and pitfalls of progress. Nature, 454(7203), 398–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, D., Stark, J., & Kirschner, D. (2008). Systems biology of persistent infection: Tuberculosis as a case study. Nature Review Microbiology, 6(7), 520–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, A., Sun, H., Wang, P., Han, Y., & Wang, X. (2012). Future perspectives of personalized medicine in traditional Chinese medicine: A systems biology approach. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 20(1), 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhi, Q., & Meng, T. (2015). Funding allocation, inequality, and scientific research output: An empirical study based on the life science sector of Natural Science Foundation of China. Scientometrics, 106(2), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Glänzel, W. (2010). In-depth analysis on China’s international cooperation in science. Scientometrics, 82(3), 597–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank many people who have contributed to this project, including Jane Maienschein, Erick Peirson, Julia Damerow, Kenneth D. Aiello, and Deryc Painter, and anonymous reviewers for their suggestions. The authors also would like to acknowledge financial support from National Science Foundation (SES 1243575), China Scholarship Council (2011635028), and the ASU-SFI Center for Biosocial Complex Systems.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Yawen Zou & Manfred D. Laubichler

  2. School of Humanities and Social Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China

    Yawen Zou

Authors
  1. Yawen Zou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manfred D. Laubichler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yawen Zou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zou, Y., Laubichler, M.D. Measuring the contributions of Chinese scholars to the research field of systems biology from 2005 to 2013. Scientometrics 110, 1615–1631 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2213-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2213-x

Keywords

Mathematic Subject Classification

Search

Navigation