Quality & Quantity

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 1437–1464 | Cite as

A strategic management approach for Korean public research institutes based on bibliometric investigation

Article

Abstract

As a process of knowledge manufacture, research activities are interpretable from the well-known economic perspectives of production and consumption. We therefore aim to investigate the contents of institutes’ research portfolio from a knowledge production and consumption perspective. A Hirsch-type-index and mean reference age serve as indicators of knowledge activity. Based on both indicators, we divide research institutes into four categories. This approach is applied to Government-funded Research Institutes (GRIs) in Korea that are dedicated to major disciplines within science and technology. We recognize GRIs’ contribution to the development in the characteristic areas. A tailored enhancement strategy is discussed for promising GRIs to improve their knowledge activity. Our results have implications for GRIs’ research portfolio management. In terms of R&D portfolio constitution, we reveal that Korean GRIs’ research themes concentrate on the strategic research such as chemistry, information and communications technology, and semiconductors. We also point out the possible fragility of the national R&D system, as national leading technologies are reliant on a few giant institutes.

Keywords

Research portfolio Public research institutes Knowledge production Knowledge consumption 

References

  1. Albarrán, P., Crespo, J.A., Ortuño, I., Ruiz-Castillo, J.: The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics 88(2), 385–397 (2011). doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0407-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F.J., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F.: h-Index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J. Informetr. 3(4), 273–289 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arencibia-Jorge, R., Barrios-Almaguer, I., Fernandez-Hernandez, S., Carvajal-Espino, R.: Applying successive H indices in the institutional evaluation: a case study. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 59(1), 155–157 (2008). doi:10.1002/Asi.20729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arencibia-Jorge, R., Rousseau, R.: Influence of individual researchers’ visibility on institutional impact: an example of Prathap’s approach to successive h-indices. Scientometrics 79(3), 507–516 (2009). doi:10.1007/s11192-007-2025-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold, W.: Science and technology development in Taiwan and South Korea. Asian Surv. 28(4), 437–450 (1988). doi:10.2307/2644737 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson, A.B.: On the measurement of inequality. J. Econ. Theory 2(3), 244–263 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ball, R., Mittermaier, B., Tunger, D.: Creation of journal-based publication profiles of scientific institutions—a methodology for the interdisciplinary comparison of scientific research based on the J-factor. Scientometrics 81(2), 381–392 (2009). doi:10.1007/s11192-009-2120-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Batista, P.D., Campiteli, M.G., Kinouchi, O.: Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics 68(1), 179–189 (2006). doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernstein, J., Gray, C.F.: Content factor: a measure of a journal’s contribution to knowledge. PLoS One 7(7), e41554 (2012). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041554 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borner, K., Klavans, R., Patek, M., Zoss, A.M., Biberstine, J.R., Light, R.P., Lariviere, V., Boyack, K.W.: Design and update of a classification system: the UCSD map of science. PLoS One 7(7), e39464 (2012). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bornmann, L., de Moya Anegón, F., Leydesdorff, L.: The new excellence indicator in the World Report of the SCImago institutions rankings 2011. J. Informetr. 6(2), 333–335 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Neuhaus, C., Daniel, H.D.: Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 8(1), 93–102 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyack, K.W., Patek, M., Ungar, L.H., Yoon, P., Klavans, R.: Classification of individual articles from all of science by research level. J. Informetr. 8(1), 1–12 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Grupp, H.: The scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 science areas, 1989–1993. Part I. All fields combined, mathematics, engineering, chemistry and physics. Scientometrics 33(3), 263–293 (1995a). doi:10.1007/bf02017332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Grupp, H.: The scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 science areas, 1989–1993. Part II. Life sciences. Scientometrics 34(2), 207–237 (1995b). doi:10.1007/bf02020421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buela-Casal, G., Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Checa, P.: Measuring internationality: reflections and perspectives on academic journals. Scientometrics 67(1), 45–65 (2006). doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0050-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Charlton, B.G., Andras, P.: Evaluating universities using simple scientometric research-output metrics: total citation counts per university for a retrospective seven-year rolling sample. Sci. Public Policy 34(8), 555–563 (2007). doi:10.3152/030234207x254413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cho, H.-D., Hwang, Y.S., Kim, W.D., Sung, T.-K., Lee, D., Lee, B.-H., Kang, Y., Lee, K.: The evolution of public research systems of major countries and policy recommendations for Korea [Original title and text in Korean]. In: Research Policy, vol. 19. STEPI (2007)Google Scholar
  19. Cho, S.K., Kim, O.T.: From science popularization to public engagement: the history of science communication in Korea. Sci. Commun. World 181–191 (2012). doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_12.
  20. Choung, J.-Y., Hwang, H.-R.: The evolutionary patterns of knowledge production in Korea. Scientometrics 94(2), 629–650 (2012). doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0780-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chun, S., Park, S., Cha, J.: Analysis of Korean government-funded research institutes and policy implications for deriving development direction [Original Title and Text in Korean]. In: Issue Paper, vol. 11. KISTEP (2009)Google Scholar
  22. Chung, C.J.: An analysis of the status of the triple helix and university-industry-government relationships in Asia. Scientometrics 99(1), 139–149 (2013). doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1100-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chung, C.J., Park, H.W.: Mapping Triple Helix innovation in developing and transitional economies: webometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics 99(1), 1–4 (2013). doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1105-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cobo, M.J., Lopez-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F.: Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 62(7), 1382–1402 (2011). doi:10.1002/Asi.21525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Egghe, L.: An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. ISSI Newsl. 2(1), 8–9 (2006a)Google Scholar
  26. Egghe, L.: Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 69(1), 131–152 (2006b). doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Egghe, L.: Modelling successive h-indices. Scientometrics 77(3), 377–387 (2008). doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1968-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Egghe, L., Rao, I.K.R.: Study of different h-indices for groups of authors. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 59(8), 1276–1281 (2008). doi:10.1002/Asi.20809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gautam, P., Kodama, K., Enomoto, K.: Joint bibliometric analysis of patents and scholarly publications from cross-disciplinary projects: implications for development of evaluative metrics. J. Contemp. East. Asia 13(1), 19–37 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gini, C.: Variabilità e mutabilità. Reprinted in Memorie di metodologica statistica. In: Pizetti, E., Salvemini, T. (eds.), vol. 1. Libreria Eredi Virgilio Veschi, Rome (1912)Google Scholar
  31. Goodall, A.H.: Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities. Res. Policy 38(7), 1079–1092 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guan, J., Ma, N.: A bibliometric study of China’s semiconductor literature compared with other major asian countries. Scientometrics 70(1), 107–124 (2007). doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0107-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Halevi, G., Moed, H.F.: The thematic and conceptual flow of disciplinary research: a citation context analysis of the journal of informetrics, 2007. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 64(9), 1903–1913 (2013). doi:10.1002/Asi.22897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hargens, L.L.: Using the literature: reference networks, reference contexts, and the social structure of scholarship. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65(6), 846 (2000). doi:10.2307/2657516 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harzing, A.-W., Alakangas, S., Adams, D.: hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences. Scientometrics (2013). doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1208-0
  36. Harzing, A.-W., Giroud, A.: The competitive advantage of nations: an application to academia. J. Informetr. 8(1), 29–42 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hirsch, J.E.: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS 102(46), 16569–16572 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Iglesias, J.E., Pecharroman, C.: Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics 73(3), 303–320 (2007). doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1805-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jaffe, K.: Science, religion and economic development. Interciencia 30(6), 370–373 (2005)Google Scholar
  40. Jaffe, K., Caicedo, M., Manzanares, M., Gil, M., Rios, A., Florez, A., Montoreano, C., Davila, V.: Productivity in physical and chemical science predicts the future economic growth of developing countries better than other popular indices. PLoS One 8(6), e66239 (2013). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jin, B.H.: H-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Sci. Focus 1(1), 8–9 (2006)Google Scholar
  42. Kim, H., Huang, M., Jin, F., Bodoff, D., Moon, J., Choe, Y.C.: Triple helix in the agricultural sector of Northeast Asian countries: a comparative study between Korea and China. Scientometrics 90(1), 101–120 (2011). doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0517-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kim, Y.-S.: Korea’s technology policy for industrialization: imported technology for economic development. Korea J. Popul. Dev. 21(1) (1992).Google Scholar
  44. Kim, Y.-S.: Technological development and R&D policy: the case of Korea. Hum. Syst. Manag. 14(3), 249–258 (1995). doi:10.3233/HSM-1995-14308 Google Scholar
  45. King, D.A.: The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430(6997), 311–316 (2004). doi:10.1038/430311a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klavans, R., Boyack, K.W.: Thought leadership: a new indicator for national and institutional comparison. Scientometrics 75(2), 239–250 (2008). doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1854-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Klavans, R., Boyack, K.W.: Toward a consensus map of science. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 60(3), 455–476 (2009). doi:10.1002/Asi.20991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee, B.: Research Counciles’ plan for strengthening specialy [Original title and text in Korean]. In. KRISS, (2002).Google Scholar
  49. Lee, D.H., Seo, I.W., Choe, H.C., Kim, H.D.: Collaboration network patterns and research performance: the case of Korean public research institutions. Scientometrics 91(3), 925–942 (2012). doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0602-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lee, L.-C., Lin, P.-H., Chuang, Y.-W., Lee, Y.-Y.: Research output and economic productivity: a Granger causality test. Scientometrics 89(2), 465–478 (2011). doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0476-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lei, X.-P., Zhao, Z.-Y., Zhang, X., Chen, D.-Z., Huang, M.-H., Zhao, Y.-H.: The inventive activities and collaboration pattern of university-industry-government in China based on patent analysis. Scientometrics 90(1), 231–251 (2011). doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0510-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leydesdorff, L.: The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: an indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics. Scientometrics 58(2), 445–467 (2003). doi:10.1023/A:1026253130577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L.: Testing differences statistically with the Leiden ranking. Scientometrics 92(3), 781–783 (2012). doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0636-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leydesdorff, L., Park, H.W., Lengyel, B.: A routine for measuring synergy in university-industry-government relations: mutual information as a Triple-Helix and Quadruple-Helix indicator. Scientometrics 99(1), 27–35 (2013). doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1079-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lin, C.-S., Huang, M.-H., Chen, D.-Z.: The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count. J. Informetr. 7(3), 611–621 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lorenz, M.O.: Methods of measuring the concentration of wealth. Publ. Am. Stat. Assoc. 9(70), 209 (1905). doi:10.2307/2276207 Google Scholar
  57. Lundvall, B.Å.: National innovation systems-analytical concept and development tool. Ind. Innovat. 14(1), 95–119 (2007). doi:10.1080/13662710601130863 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Luz, M.P., Marques-Portella, C., Mendlowicz, M., Gleiser, S., Silva Freire Coutinho, E., Figueira, I.: Institutional h-index: the performance of a new metric in the evaluation of Brazilian psychiatric post-graduation programs. Scientometrics 77(2), 361–368 (2008). doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1964-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R.: The roles of research at universities and public labs in economic catch-up. Working Paper. Initiative for Policy Dialogue, Columbia University, Nova York (2005)Google Scholar
  60. Merrifield, B.: The overriding importance of R&D as it relates to industrial competitiveness. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 6(1), 71–79 (1989). doi:10.1016/0923-4748(89)90015-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Molinari, A., Molinari, J.F.: Mathematical aspects of a new criterion for ranking scientific institutions based on the h-index. Scientometrics 75(2), 339–356 (2008a). doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1872-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Molinari, J.F., Molinari, A.: A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics 75(1), 163–174 (2008b). doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1853-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moya-Anegón, F., Herrero-Solana, V.: Science in America latina: a comparison of bibliometric and scientific-technical indicators. Scientometrics 46(2), 299–320 (1999). doi:10.1007/bf02464780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moya-Anegon, F., Herrero-Solana, V.: Worldwide topology of the scientific subject profile: a macro approach on the country level. arXiv preprint arXiv:1005.2223 (2010).
  65. MSIP: Act on the establishment, operation and support of government-funded science and technology research institutes. In: Msip (ed.), vol. 11719. (2013)Google Scholar
  66. Narin, F., Hamilton, K.S., Olivastro, D.: The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Res. Policy 26(3), 317–330 (1997). doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(97)00013-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Park, H.W.: An interview with Loet Leydesdorff: the past, present, and future of the triple helix in the age of big data. Scientometrics 99(1), 199–202 (2013). doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1123-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Park, H.W., Hong, H.D., Leydesdorff, L.: A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and the Netherlands using Triple Helix indicators. Scientometrics 65(1), 3–27 (2005). doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0257-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Park, H.W., Leydesdorff, L.: Longitudinal trends in networks of university-industry-government relations in South Korea: the role of programmatic incentives. Res. Policy 39(5), 640–649 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Phillips, F.: Triple helix and the circle of innovation. J. Contemp. East. Asia 13(1), 57–68 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Piro, F.N., Aksnes, D.W., Rorstad, K.: A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 64(2), 307–320 (2013). doi:10.1002/Asi.22746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Podlubny, I.: Comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science. Scientometrics 64(1), 95–99 (2005). doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0240-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Porter, A.L., Youtie, J.: Where does nanotechnology belong in the map of science? Nat. Nanotechnol. 4(9), 534–536 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Prathap, G.: Hirsch-type indices for ranking institutions’ scientific research output. Curr. Sci. 91(11), 1439 (2006)Google Scholar
  75. Price, D.J.: Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience. In: Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, pp. 3–22 (1970)Google Scholar
  76. R Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer program]. Available at www.R-project.org. R Foundation Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2013)
  77. Raan, A.J.: Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics 67(3), 491–502 (2006). doi:10.1556/Scient.67.2006.3.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rousseau, R.: New developments related to the Hirsch index. Sci. Focus 1(4), 23–25 (2006)Google Scholar
  79. Rousseau, R., Yang, L., Yue, T.: A discussion of Prathap’s h2-index for institutional evaluation with an application in the field of HIV infection and therapy. J. Informetr. 4(2), 175–184 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ruane, F., Tol, R.S.J.: Rational (successive) h-indices: An application to economics in the Republic of Ireland. Scientometrics 75(2), 395–405 (2008). doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1869-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schreiber, M.: Self-citation corrections for the Hirsch index. Epl Europhys. Lett. 78(3), 30002 (2007). doi:10.1209/0295-5075/78/30002. Artn 30002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schubert, A.: Successive h-indices. Scientometrics 70(1), 201–205 (2007). doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0112-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schubert, A., Braun, T.: Three scientometric etudes on developing countries as a tribute to Michael Moravcsik. Scientometrics 23(1), 3–19 (1992). doi:10.1007/bf02020910 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sci2 Team: Science of Science (Sci2) Tool. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies [Computer program]. Available at http://sci2.cns.iu.edu (2009)
  85. Seong, J.E., Ko, Y.J.: Efforts of Government-funded Research Institues on post catch-up innovation: case of KRICT (Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology) [Original title and text in Korean]. J. Technol. Innov. 21(2), 85–113 (2013). doi:10.14383/SIME.2013.21.2.004
  86. Shapiro, M.A.: Receiving information at Korean and Taiwanese universities, industry, and GRIs. Scientometrics 90(1), 289–309 (2011). doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0501-z
  87. Shapiro, M.A., Park, H.W.: Regional development in South Korea: accounting for research area in centrality and networks. Scientometrics 90(1), 271–287 (2011). doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0498-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sharif, N.: Emergence and development of the National Innovation Systems concept. Res. Policy 35(5), 745–766 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shin, J.C.: Classifying higher education institutions in Korea: a performance-based approach. High. Educ. 57(2), 247–266 (2008). doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9150-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sorenson, O., Fleming, L.: Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Res. Policy 33(10), 1615–1634 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Stigler, S.M.: Citation patterns in the journals of statistics and probability. Stat. Sci. 9(1), 94–108 (1994). doi:10.2307/2246292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tennekes, M.: treemap: Treemap visualization [Computer program]. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=treemap (2014)
  93. Tol, R.S.J.: A rational, successive g-index applied to economics departments in Ireland. J. Informetr. 2(2), 149–155 (2008). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L.: Generalizing the h- and g-indices. J. Informetr. 2(4), 263–271 (2008). doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vanclay, J.K.: On the robustness of the h-index. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 58(10), 1547–1550 (2007). doi:10.1002/asi.20616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vinkler, P.: Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics 10(3–4), 157–177 (1986). doi:10.1007/bf02026039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Vinkler, P.: A quasi-quantitative citation model. Scientometrics 12(1–2), 47–72 (1987). doi:10.1007/bf02016689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vinkler, P.: Correlation between the structure of scientific research, scientometric indicators and GDP in EU and non-EU countries. Scientometrics 74(2), 237–254 (2007). doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0215-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wickham, H.: ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer New York, (2009)Google Scholar
  100. Ye, F.Y., Yu, S.S., Leydesdorff, L.: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations at the country level and its dynamic evolution under the pressures of globalization. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 64(11), 2317–2325 (2013). doi:10.1002/Asi.22931 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zhang, Q., Perra, N., Goncalves, B., Ciulla, F., Vespignani, A.: Characterizing scientific production and consumption in physics. Sci. Rep. 3, 1640 (2013). doi:10.1038/srep01640 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Program for Technology Innovation & ManagementPohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH)PohangRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Industrial and Management Engineering/Department of PhysicsPohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH)PohangRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations