Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 10, Issue 6, pp 981–986 | Cite as

Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs

Perspectives

Abstract

This article examines the relative positions with respect to nanotechnology research publications of the European Union (EU), the United States (US), Japan, Germany, China, and three Asian Tiger nations (South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan). The analysis uses a dataset of nanotechnology publication records for the time period 1990 through 2006 (part year) extracted from the Science Citation Index obtained through the Web of Science and was developed through a two-stage modularized Boolean approach. The results show that although the EU and the US have the highest number of nanotechnology publications, China and other Asian countries are increasing their publications rapidly, taking an ever-larger proportion of the total. When viewed in terms of the quality-based measure of citations, Asian nanotechnology researchers also show growth in recent years. However, by such citation measures, the US still maintains a strongly dominant position, followed by the EU.

Keywords

Nanotechnology publication Bibliometric analysis Citation analysis Country comparison Nanoscience International perspective 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Significant research assistance in database development was provided by Luciano Kay, Pratik Mehta, and Webb Myers. This research was undertaken at Georgia Tech with support by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society (Arizona State University), supported by the National Science Foundation (Award No. 0531194) and by the National Partnership for Managing Upstream Innovation: The Case of Nanoscience and Technology (North Carolina State University; NSF Award No. EEC-0438684). The findings and observations contained in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Glanzel W, Meyer M, Plessis M, Thijs B, Magerman T, Schlemmer B, Debackere K, Veugelers R (2003) Nanotechnology, analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavor. Report of Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  2. Heinze T, Shapira P, Senker J, Kuhlmann S (2007) Identifying creative research accomplishments: methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics. Scientometrics 70(1):125–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hirsch J (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(46):16569–16572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Huang Z, Chen H, Yip A, Ng G, Guo F, Chen Z, Roco M (2003) Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: country, institution and technology field. J Nanopart Res 5: 333–363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Huang Z, Chen H, Yan L, Roco M (2005) Longitudinal nanotechnology development (1991–2002): National Science Foundation funding and its impact on patents. J Nanopart Res 7:343–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hullmann A, Meyer M (2003) Publications and patents in nanotechnology: an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics 58(3):507–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lin MW, Zhang J (2007) Language trends in nanoscience and technology: the case of Chinese-language publications. Scientometrics 70(3):555–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kostoff RN, Stump JA, Johnson D, Murday JS, Lau CGY, Tolles WM (2006) The structure and infrastructure of global nanotechnology literature. J Nanopart Res 8(3–4):301–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kostoff RN, Koytcheff RG, Lau CGY (2007) Technical structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology literature. J Nanopart Res 9:701–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Miyazaki K, Islam N (2007) Nanotechnology systems of innovation—An analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation 27:661–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Porter A, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck D (2007) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. (August, Online First)Google Scholar
  12. Zhou P, Leydesdorff L (2006) The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Res Policy 35(1):83–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zitt M, Bassecoulard E (2006) Delineating complex scientific fields by a hybrid lexical-citation method: an application to nanosciences. Inform Processing Management 42(6):1513–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zucker LG, Darby MR (2005) Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: initial results and Nanobank. Working Paper 11181, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Enterprise Innovation Institute, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  4. 4.Technology Policy and Assessment Center, School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations