, 88:1 | Cite as

China–US scientific collaboration in nanotechnology: patterns and dynamics

  • Li Tang
  • Philip ShapiraEmail author


This paper examines the rapid growth of China in the field of nanotechnology and the rise of collaboration between China and the US in this emerging domain. Chinese scientific papers in nanotechnology are analyzed to indicate overall trends, leading fields and the most prolific institutions. Patterns of ChinaUS nanotechnology paper co-authorship are examined over the period 1990–2009, with an analysis of how these patterns have changed over time. The paper combines bibliometric analysis and science mapping. We find rapid development in the number of ChinaUS co-authored nanotechnology papers as well as structural changes in array of collaborative nanotechnology sub-fields. Implications for both China and the US of this evolving relationship are discussed.


ChinaUS scientific collaboration Bibliometric analysis Science mapping Nanotechnology 



This research was supported in part by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (National Science Foundation Awards 0531194 and 0937591). 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.


  1. Adams, J., & Wilsdon, J. (2006). The new geography of science: UK research and international collaboration, Evidence Ltd. Retrieved January 5, 2011, from
  2. Atkinson, R. C., & Blanpied, W. A. (2008). Research universities: Core of the US science and technology system. Technology in Society, 30, 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu, A., & Aggarwal, R. (2001). International collaboration in science in India and its impact on institutional performance. Scientometrics, 52(3), 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger, M. (2007). Debunking the trillion dollar nanotechnology market size hype. Nanowerk. Retrieved January 5, 2011, from
  5. Bhushan, B. (2007). Introduction to Nanotechnology. In B. Bhushan (Ed.), Springer handbook of nanotechnology (pp. 1–10). Springer: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duque, R. B., Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D. B. S., & Shrum, W. (2005). Collaboration paradox: Scientific productivity, the Internet, and problems of research in developing areas. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 755–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission. (2003). The Third European Report on Science and Technology Indicators 2003. Towards a knowledge-based economy. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  8. Georghiou, L. (1998). Global cooperation in research. Research Policy, 27(6), 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huang, C., Notten, A., & Rasters, N. (2010). Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: A review of social science studies and search strategies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 145–172.Google Scholar
  10. Hwang, K. (2008). International collaboration in multilayered center-periphery in the globalization of science and technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(1), 101–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jin, B., Suttmeier, R. P., Wang, Z., Cao, C., Wang, D., & Zhou, Q. (2007). Sino–U.S. science collaboration: An analysis in bibliometrics. Journal of Shanxi University (Natural Science Edition), 30(2), 295–302.Google Scholar
  12. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007). Global nanotechnology research metrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 565–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee, L. L., Chan, C. K., Ngiam, M., & Ramakrishna, S. (2006). Nanotechnology patent landscape 2006. NANO, 1(2), 101–113.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lin, M.-W., & Zhang, J. (2007). Language trends in nanoscience and technology: The case of Chinese-language publications. Scientometrics, 70, 555–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science Technology Human Values, 17(1), 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lux Research. (2005). Ranking the Nations: Nanotech’s Shifting Global Leaders. New York: Lux Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Lux Research (2006). The Nanotech Report (4th edition): Investment Overview and Market Research for Nanotechnology. New York: Lux Research Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Lux Research. (2009). The recession’s ripple effect on nanotech. State of the Market Report. New York: Lux Research Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Melkers, J., & Kiopa, A. (2010). The Social capital of global ties in science: The added value of international collaboration. Review of Policy Research, 27(4), 389–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. National Science Board. (2010). Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10-01).Google Scholar
  21. NNI. (2010). The NNI Supplement to the President’s 2011 Budget. Retrieved from
  22. OECD. (2008). OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: China 2008. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  23. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009). Where does nanotechnology belong in the map of science? Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 534–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Porter, A., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rafols, I., Porter, A. L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1871–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raj, B., Bawa, S. R., Maebius, S. B., Flynn, T., & Wei, C. (2005). Protecting new ideas and inventions in nanomedicine with patents. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology, and Medicine, 1(2), 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rejeski, D. (2009). Nanotechnology and consumer products. CPSC FY2010 Agenda and Priorities, Testimony before the Consumer Products Safety Commission, August 18, 2009. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.Google Scholar
  29. Roco, M. C. (2005). International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 707–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roco, M. C. (2010). The long view of nanotechnology development: The National Nanotechnology Initiative at ten years. In M. C. Roco, C. Mirkin, & M. Hersam (Eds.), Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2005). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Royle, J., Coles, L., Williams, D., & Evans, P. (2007). Publishing in international journals—An examination of trends in Chinese co-authorship. Scientometrics, 71(1), 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rubinstein, E. (2000). China’s leader commits to global science and scientific exchange. Science, 16, 1950.Google Scholar
  34. Sargent, J. F. (2010). Nanotechnology: A policy primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  35. Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2009). From lab to market: Strategies and issues in the commercialization of nanotechnology in China. Journal of Asian Business Management, 8(4), 461–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2010). Follow the money. What was the impact of the nanotechnology funding boom of the past ten years? Nature, 469, 627–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2010). United States. In D. Guston & J. G. Golson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of nanoscience and society. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Suttmeier, R. P. (2008). State, self-organization, and identity in the building of Sino–U.S. cooperation in science and technology. Asian Perspective, 32(1), 5–31.Google Scholar
  39. Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2011). Regional development and interregional collaboration in the growth of nanotechnology research in China. Scientometrics, 86, 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tang, L., & Walsh, J. (2010). Bibliometric fingerprints: Name disambiguation based on approximate structure equivalence of cognitive maps. Scientometrics, 84, 763–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tang, L., Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2010). China. In D. Guston & J. G. Golson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of nanoscience and society. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Velloso, A., Lannes, D., & de Meis, L. (2004). Concentration of science in Brazilian governmental universities. Scientometrics, 61(2), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wagner, C. S. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Youtie, J., Porter, A., Shapira, P., Tang, L., & Benn, T. (2011). The use of environmental, health and safety research in nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 11, 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Porter, A. (2008). National nanotechnology publications and citations. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(6), 981–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.School of Public Economics and AdministrationShanghai University of Finance and EconomicsShanghaiP.R. China
  3. 3.Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations