, 81:475 | Cite as

A comparative study of the difference in research performance in biomedical fields among selected Western and Asian countries

  • Xiaojun Hu
  • Ronald Rousseau


In this study, a series of relative indicators are used to compare the difference in research performance in biomedical fields between ten selected Western and Asian countries. Based on Thomson’s Essential Science Indicators (ESI) 1996–2006, the output of papers and their citations in ten biomedical fields are compared at multiple levels using relative indicators. Chart diagrams and hierarchical clustering are applied to represent the data. The results confirm that there are many differences in intra- and interdisciplinary scientific activities between the West and the East. In most biomedical fields Asian countries perform below world average.


Research Performance Activity Index Citation Rate World Average Citation Impact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams, J. (1998), Benchmarking international research. Nature, 396: 615–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H. D. (2007), The b index as a measure of scientific excellence — a promising complement to the h index. Cybermetrics, 11(1), paper 6.Google Scholar
  3. Braun, T., Glänzel, W. (1990), United Germany: the new scientific superpower? Scientometrics, 19: 513–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cyranoski, D. (2001), Building a biopolis. Nature, 412: 370–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Bruin, R., Kint, A., Luwel, M., Moed, H. F. (1993), A study of research evaluation and planning: the University of Ghent. Research Evaluation, 3: 25–41.Google Scholar
  6. Egghe, L., Rousseau, R. (2002), A general framework for relative impact indicators. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science/La Revue canadienne des sciences de l’information et de bibliothéconomie, 27(1): 29–48.Google Scholar
  7. Eisenhauer, J. G. (2003), Regression through the origin. Teaching Statistics, 25(3): 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frame, J. D. (1977), Mainstream reseach in Latin America and the Caribbean. Interciencia, 2: 143–148.Google Scholar
  9. Glänzel, W. (2001), National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1): 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Meyer, M. (2008), ’Triad’ or ‘tetrad’ ? On global changes in a dynamic world. Scientometrics, 74: 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gómez, I., Fernández, M. T., Zulueta, M. A., Cami, J. (1995), Analysis of biomedical research in Spain. Research Policy, 24: 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guan, J. C., Ma, N. (2004), A comparative study of research performance in computer science. Scientometrics, 61: 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horta, H., Veloso, F. M. (2007), Opening the box: comparing EU and US scientific output by scientific field. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74: 1334–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu, XJ. (2007), Relative superiority coefficient of papers: a new dimension for institutional research performance in different fields. Scientometrics, 72: 388–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jin, BH., Rousseau, R. (2005), China’s quantitative expansion phase: exponential growth but low impact. In: P. Ingwersen, B. Larsen (Eds) Proceedings of ISSI 2005. Stockholm: Karolinska University Press, pp. 362–370Google Scholar
  16. Leydesdorff, L., Zhou, P. (2005), Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometrics, 63: 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lim, K. H. (2004), The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981–1997). Research Policy, 33: 287–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu, L., Zhang, J. J. (2007), Characterising nanotechnology research in China. Science Technology & Society, 12: 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Must, Ü. (2006), “New” countries in Europe — Research, development and innovation strategies vs bibliometric data. Scientometrics, 66(2): 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004), Measuring science. In: H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 19–50Google Scholar
  21. Rousseau, R. (2008), Triad or Tetrad: another representation. ISSI Newsletter, 4(1): 5–7.Google Scholar
  22. Schubert, A., Braun, T. (1986), Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9: 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., Braun, T. (1983), Relative citation rate: a new indicator for measuring the impact of publications. In: D. Tomov, L. Dimitrova (Eds), Proceedings of the 1 st national Conference with International participation on Scientometrics and Linguistics of the Scientific Text, Varna (Bulgaria), pp. 80–81.Google Scholar
  24. Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., Braun, T. (1989), World flash on basic research. Scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major fields and subfields 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 16: 3–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shelton, R. D., Foland, P., Gorelskyy, R. (2007), Do new SCI journals have a different national bias? In: D. Torres-Salinas, H. F. Moed (Eds) Proceedings of ISSI 2007, pp. 708–717.Google Scholar
  26. Shelton, R. D., Holdridge, G. M. (2004), The US-EU race for leadership of science and technology: qualitative and quantitative indicators. Scientometrics, 60: 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thorsteinsdóttir, H., Daar, A. S., Singer, P. A., Archambault, E., Arunachalam, S. (2006), Health biotechnology publishing takes-off in developing countries. International Journal of Biotechnology 8(1/2): 23–42.Google Scholar
  28. Vinkler, P. (1998), General performance indexes calculated for research institutes of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences based on scientometric indicators. Scientometrics 41: 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Von Bubnoff, A. (2005), Asia squeezes Europe’s lead in science. Nature 436(7049): 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang T. Y., Chien, S. C., Kao, C. (2007), The role of technology development in national competitiveness — Evidence from Southeast Asian countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74: 1357–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wells, W. A. (2007), The returning tide. How China, the world’s most populous country, is building a competitive research base. Journal of Cell Biology, 178: 376–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu, R. (2004), Making an impact. Nature, 428: 206–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang, LY., Jin, BH. (2006), A co-occurrence study of international universities and institutes leading to a new instrument for detecting partners for research collaboration. ISSI Newsletter, 2(3): 7–9.Google Scholar
  34. Zhou, P., Leydesdorff, L. (2006), The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1): 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E. (2008), Challenges for scientometric indicators: data demining, knowledge-flow measurement and diversity issues. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(5–7): 49–60. DOI: 10.3354/esep00092CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Information CenterZhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina
  2. 2.KHBO (Association K.U.Leuven)Industrial Sciences and TechnologyOostendeBelgium
  3. 3.Steunpunt O&O Indicatoren and Dept. MSIK. U. LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations