, 89:501 | Cite as

Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009

  • R. KarpagamEmail author
  • S. Gopalakrishnan
  • M. Natarajan
  • B. Ramesh Babu


This paper analyses the growth pattern of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology literature in India during 1990–2009 (20 years). The Scopus international multidisciplinary bibliographical database has been used to identify the Indian contributions on the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The study measures the performance based on several parameters, country annual growth rate, authorship pattern, collaborative index, collaborative coefficient, modified collaborative coefficient, subject profile, etc. Further the study examines national publication output and impact in terms of average citations per paper, international collaboration output and share, contribution and impact of Indian Institutions and impact of Indian journals.


Nanotechnology Nanoscience Collaborative coefficient h-index g-index p-index 


  1. Ajiferuke, I., Burell, O., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14, 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso, S., et al. (2010). hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g-indices. Scientometrics, 82, 391–400. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0047-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bassecoulard, E., Lelu, A., & Zitt, M. (2007). Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis. Scientometrics, 70(3), 859–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya, S., & Nath, P. (2002). Using patent statistics as a measure of “technologies assertiveness”? A China-India comparison. Current Science, 83(1), 23–29.Google Scholar
  5. Braun, T., Schubert, A. P., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, H., & Roco, M. C. (2009). Mapping nanotechnology innovations and knowledge (p. 330). New York, USA: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franks, A. (1987). Nanotechnology. Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments, 20, 1442–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garg, K. C., & Pandhi, P. (1999). Scientometrics of laser research literature as viewed through, Journal of Current Laser Abstracts. Scientometrics, 45, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garg, K. C., et al. (2009). Bibliometrics of global malaria vaccine research. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glanzel, W., Meyer, M., Du Plessis, M., Thijs, B., Magerman, T., Schlemmer, B., et al. (2003). Nanotechnology: Analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavour. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: Steupunt O&O Staisitieken.Google Scholar
  12. Hirsch, (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of National Academic Science, USA, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang, Z., Chen, H., Chen, Z. K., & Roco, M. (2004). International nanotechnology development in 2003; country, institution and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 325–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang, M. H., Chiang, L. Y., & Chen, D. Z. (2003). Constructing a patent citation map using bibliographic coupling: A study of Taiwans high-tech companies. Scientometrics, 58(3), 458–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hullmann, A. (2007). Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(3), 739–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in the nanotechnology: An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Igami, M. (2008). Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications. Scientometrics, 77(2), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007). Global nanotechnology research metrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 565–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kostoff, R. N., Stump, J. A., Johnson, D., Murday, J. S., Lau, C. G. Y., & Tolles, W. M. (2006). The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(3), 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawani, S. M. (1980). Quality, collaboration and citations in cancer research: A 268 bibliometric study. Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University, 395 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Leydesdorff, L. (2008). The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update. Scientometrics, 76(1), 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Li, X., Chen, H., Dang, Y., Lin, Y., Larsen, C. A., & Roco, M. C. (2008). A longitudinal analysis of nanotechnology literature 1976–2994. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin, M.-W., & Zhang, J. (2007). Language trends in nanoscience and technology: The case of Chinese-language publications. Scientometrics, 70(3), 555–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu, X., et al. (2009). Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia and India. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 1845–1866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mahapatra, M. (1985). On the validity of the theory of exponential growth of scientific literature. In 15th IASLIC conference proceedings, Bangalore, IASLIC, pp 61–70.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer, M. (2000a). Patent citations in a novel field of technology—what can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology? Scientometrics, 48(2), 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer, M. (2000b). Does science push technology? Please citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyer, M. (2000c). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49(1), 93–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyer, M. (2001). Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 51(1), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meyer, M. (2007). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path dependency. Scientometrics, 70(3), 779–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2), 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meyer, M., Persson, O., & Power, Y. (2001). Nanotechnology expert group and eurotech data mapping excellence in nanotechnologies, EC, DG-research, Preparatory study.Google Scholar
  34. Mithal, R., Ahmad, M., & Singh, G. (2005). Citation mapping of published literature on Embelia ribes. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 52(4), 308–316.Google Scholar
  35. Mohan, L., Prakasan, E. R., Kademani, B. S., Surwase, G., Kumar, A., & Kumar, V. (2010). Research trends in nanoscience and nanotechnology in India. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 30(2), 40–58.Google Scholar
  36. Nagpaul, P. S. (1995). Contribution of Indian universities to the mainstream scientific literature, a bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics, 32, 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Noyons, E. C., Buter, R. K., Hinze, S., Van Raan, A. F. J., Schmoch, U., Heinze, T., & Rangnow, R. (2003). Mapping excellence in science and technology across Eruope: Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, EC, EC-PPN, CT 2002-0001.Google Scholar
  38. Parr, D. (2005). Will nanotechnology make the world a better place? Trends in Biotechnology, 23(8), 395–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pavitt, K. (1998). Do patents reflect the useful output of universities? Research Evaluation, 7(2), 105–111.Google Scholar
  40. Pouris, A. (2007). Nanoscale research in South Africa: A mapping exercise based on scientometrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prathap, G. (2010). The 100 most prolific economists using the p-index. Scientometrics, 84, 167–172. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0068-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prathap, G., & Gupta, B. M. (2009). Ranking of Indian engineering and technological institutes for their research performance during 1999–2008. Current Science, 97(3).Google Scholar
  43. Radrigo, Costas., & Maria, Bordons. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rajeswari, A. R. (1996). Indian patent statistics: An analysis. Scientometrics, 36(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Retrieved from Scopus Info Site on March 2, 2010
  46. Roco, M. C. (2001). International strategyfor nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 3(5–6), 353–360.Google Scholar
  47. Sangeetha, M. A., Chakrabarti, S., & Amba, S. (1999). Indian leather patents: An analysis. World Patent Information, 21(2), 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Savanur, K., & Srikanth, R. (2010). Modified collaborative coefficient: A new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration. Scientometrics, 84, 365–371. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0100-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schreiber, M. (2008). The influence of self-citations corrections on Egghe’s g-index. Scientometrics, 76(1), 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schultz, L. I., & Joutz, F. L. (2009). Methods for identifying emerging general purpose technologies: A case study of nanotechnologies. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0244-2.
  51. Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schummer, J. (2007). The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: A bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy. Scientometrics, 70(3), 669–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6, 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Takeda, Y., et al. (2009). Nanobiotechnology as an emerging research domain from nanotechnology: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 80(1), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tol, R. S. J. (2009). The h-index and its alternatives: An application to the 100 most prolific economists. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s/11192-008-2079-7.
  56. Wilson, C. S. (2001). Informetrics, In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, Medford NJ: Information Today, Inc. for the American Society for Information Science, pp. 3–143.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, M., Kannangara, K., Smith, G., Simmons, M., & Raguse, B. (2002). Nanotechnology: Basic science and emerging technologies. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (2006). Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: An application to nanosciences. Information Processing & Management, 42(6), 1513–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Karpagam
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Gopalakrishnan
    • 2
  • M. Natarajan
    • 3
  • B. Ramesh Babu
    • 4
  1. 1.University LibraryAnna UniversityChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Anna UniversityChennaiIndia
  3. 3.Tamil Arasi PublicationsChennaiIndia
  4. 4.Department of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations