, Volume 78, Issue 1, pp 23–36 | Cite as

Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system



Based on the Science Citation Index-Expanded web-version, the USA is still by far the strongest nation in terms of scientific performance. Its relative decline in percentage share of publications is largely due to the emergence of China and other Asian nations. In 2006, China has become the second largest nation in terms of the number of publications within this database. In terms of citations, the competitive advantage of the American “domestic market” is diminished, while the European Union (EU) is profiting more from the enlargement of the database over time than the USA. However, the USA is still outperforming all other countries in terms of highly cited papers and citation/publication ratios, and it is more successful than the EU in coordinating its research efforts in strategic priority areas like nanotechnology. In this field, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has become second largest nation in both numbers of papers published and citations behind the USA.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., Marx, W. (2007), Citation environment of Angewandte Chemie. Chimia, 61(3): 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (1991), The bibliometric assessment of UK scientific performance — some comments on Martin’s reply. Scientometrics, 20: 359–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun, T., Schubert, A., Zsindely, S. (1997), Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38: 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, T., Dióspatonyi, I. (2005), The counting of core journal gatekeepers as science indicators really counts. The scientific scope of action and strength of nations. Scientometrics, 52(3): 297–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun, T., Zsindely, S., Dióspatonyi, I., Zádor, E. (2007), Gatekeeping patterns in nano-titled journals. Scientometrics, 71(3): 651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Criscuolo, P. (2006), The ‘home advantage’ effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USTPTO and EPO. Scientometrics, 66(1): 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dosi, G., Llerena, P., Labini, M. S. (2006), The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35(10): 1450–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evidence (2003), PSA Target Metrics for the UK Research Base. UK Office of Science and Technology, London, October 2003. Available at (last visited on 2 February 2007)Google Scholar
  9. Freeman, L. C. (1977), A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1): 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman, L. C. (1978/1979), Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1: 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Granstrand, O. (1999), The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property: Towards Intellectual Capitalism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Grens, K. (2006), NSF examines plateau in US publications: US scientists’ share of publications is declining in the face of competition from countries like China. The Scientist, 14 November 2006.Google Scholar
  13. Hullmann, A. (2006), Who is winning the global nanorace? Nature Nanotechnology, 1(2): 81–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M. (2002), Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jin, B., Rousseau, R. (2004), Evaluation of research performance and scientometric indicators in China. In: Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (Eds), pp. 497–514. Dordrecht, etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. King, D. A. (2004), The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430 (15 July 2004): 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kostoff, R. (2004), The (scientific) wealth of nations. The Scientist, 18(18): 10.Google Scholar
  18. Leydesdorff, L. (2005), The scientific impact of China. Scientometrics, 63(2): 411–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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): 1302–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leydesdorff, L. (2008A), Patent classifications as indicators of intellectual organization, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(10): 1582–1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leydesdorff, L. (2008B), The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology on terms of journals and patents: a most recent update, Scientometerics, 76(1): 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leydesdorff, L., Cozzens, S. E., Van Den Besselaar, P. (1994), Tracking areas of strategic importance using scientometric journal mappings. Research Policy, 23: 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leydesdorff, L., Zhou, P. (2005), Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometrics, 63(3): 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leydesdorff, L., Zhou, P. (2007), Nanotechnology as a field of science: its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3): 693–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, B. R. (1991), The bibliometric assessment of UK scientific performance — A reply to Braun, Glänzel and Schubert. Scientometrics, 20: 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer, M., Persson, O. (1998), Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2): 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mogoutov, A., Kahane, B. (2007), Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking. Research Policy, 36(3): 893–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mohrman, S., Wagner C. S. (2006), The Dynamics off Knowledge Creation: A Baseline for the Assessment of the Role and Contribution of the Department of Energy’s Nanoscale Science Research Centers, University of Southern California. Los Angeles: Marshall School of Business, Center of Effective Organizations.Google Scholar
  29. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., Olivastro, D. (1997), The increasing link between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3): 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Science Board (2006), Science and Engineering Indicators. Washington, DC: NSF.Google Scholar
  31. Porter, A., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., Schoeneck, D. J. (2006), Refining search terms for nanotechnology, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5): 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scheu, M., Veefkind, V., Verbandt, Y., Galan, E. M., Absalom, R., Förster, W. (2006), Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach. World Patent Information, 28: 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shelton, R. D. (2006), Relations between national research investments inputs and publication outputs: application to the American Paradox. Paper presented at the 9th International Science Technology Indicators Conference, Leuven, Belgium, 7–9 September 2006; Scientometrics, 74(2): 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shelton, R. D., Holdridge, G. M. (2004), The US-EU race for leadership of science and technology. Scientometrics, 60(3): 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wagner, C. S., Leydesdorff, L. (2005), Mapping the network of global science: comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1(2): 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhou, P., Leydesdorff, L. (2006), The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1): 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhou, P., Leydesdorff, L. (2007), A comparison between the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database and the Science Citation Index in terms of journal hierarchies and inter-journal citation relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2): 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E. (2006), Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: An application to nanosciences. Information Processing and Management, 42: 1513–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.SRI InternationalArlingtonUSA
  3. 3.George Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations