Scientometrics

, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 333–342 | Cite as

A scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective

Article

Abstract

In this study we present an analysis of the research trends in Pakistan in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Starting with just seven publications in the year 2000, this number has steadily increased to 542 for the year 2011. Among the top 15 institutions with publications in nanotechnology 13 are universities and only two are R&D organizations. Almost 35 % of the research publications are in the field of material sciences followed by chemistry and physics in that order. The growth in the publications for period 2000–2011 is studied through relative growth rate and doubling time. The authorship pattern is measured by different collaboration parameters, like collaborative index, degree of collaboration, collaboration coefficient and modified collaboration coefficient. Finally the quality of papers is assessed by means of the h-index, g-index, hg-index and p-index.

Keywords

Bibliometric Relative growth rate Degree of collaboration Nanoscience Nanotechnology 

References

  1. Ajiferuke, I., Burell, Q., et al. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14(5), 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., et al. (2010). hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h-and g-indices. Scientometrics, 82(2), 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bajwa, R. S., & Yaldram, K. (2012). Research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan scenario. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14(2), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feynman, R. P. (1960). There’s plenty of room at the bottom. Engineering and Science, 23(5), 22–36.Google Scholar
  7. Gupta, V. K. (2009). Indian publications output in nanotechnology during 1990–2008. Advanced Science Letters, 2(3), 402–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Karpagam, R., Gopalakrishnan, S., Natarajan, M., & Ramesh Babu, B. (2011) Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009. Scientometrics, 89, 501–522.Google Scholar
  10. Lawani, S. M. (1980). Quality, collaboration and citations in cancer research: A 268 bibliometric study. Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University.Google Scholar
  11. Liu, X., Zhang, P., et al. (2009). Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia, and India. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(8), 1845–1866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mahapatra, M. (1985). On the validity of the theory of exponential growth of scientific literature. Proceedings of the 15 th IASLIC conference, Bangalore (pp. 61–70). Bangalore.Google Scholar
  13. Prathap, G. (2010). The 100 most prolific economists using the p-index. Scientometrics, 84(1), 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Roco, M. C. (2011). The long view of nanotechnology development: The national nanotechnology initiative at 10 years. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13, 427–445.Google Scholar
  15. Savanur, K., & Srikanth, R. (2010). Modified collaborative coefficient: A new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration. Scientometrics, 84(2), 365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shahid, M. (2010, Dec, 6–9). S&T indicators of Pakistan a country report 2010 south Asian regional workshop on STI indicators Kathmandu, Nepal.Google Scholar
  17. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of information Science, 6(1), 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2010). Regional development and interregional collaboration in the growth of nanotechnology research in China. Scientometrics, 86(2), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Preston Institute of Nanoscience and Technology (PINSAT)IslamabadPakistan
  2. 2.Center of NanotechnologyKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations