Skip to main content
Log in

Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the relative positions with respect to nanotechnology research publications of the European Union (EU), the United States (US), Japan, Germany, China, and three Asian Tiger nations (South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan). The analysis uses a dataset of nanotechnology publication records for the time period 1990 through 2006 (part year) extracted from the Science Citation Index obtained through the Web of Science and was developed through a two-stage modularized Boolean approach. The results show that although the EU and the US have the highest number of nanotechnology publications, China and other Asian countries are increasing their publications rapidly, taking an ever-larger proportion of the total. When viewed in terms of the quality-based measure of citations, Asian nanotechnology researchers also show growth in recent years. However, by such citation measures, the US still maintains a strongly dominant position, followed by the EU.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Kostoff et al. (2007) also present national nanotechnology publications comparisons. We differ here in considering leading countries and blocs of special interest, and addressing total citations as well as publications. Kostoff et al. (2007) do limited national ranking based only on share of 1998 papers with >120 cites and 2002 papers with >79 cites—with the particularly interesting finding that China’s share of most cited papers increases from 1.4 to 5.8% in that span.

  2. In this article, the European Union is taken to comprise the 27 member countries (EU27) at the time we undertook the analysis. These countries are: Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

  3. Although the focus in the present article is on large countries and blocs, we note that a few individual highly-developed small countries (mostly in Europe, including Switzerland and the Netherlands) have comparable or higher normalized quality impact factors in nanotechnology than the US, although their scale of output is far less.

  4. Our approach builds upon prior experience in developing a large-scale bibliometric database of nanotechnology publications (as discussed in Heinze et al. 2007). In further refining our method, we reviewed a number of alternative nanotechnology search strategies, including strategies developed at UCLA’s Nanobank (Zucker and Darby 2005) and in Europe (Zitt and Bassecoulard 2006), and consulted with several experts in nanotechnology and bibliometrics. We decided on a two-stage Boolean search rather than the bootstrap or lexical clustering approaches used by these colleagues, judging that this two-stage method provided the capability to fine-tune the search algorithm to ensure precision and timeliness. As we implemented our search strategy, we benefited from an in-depth (“item by item”) review by Prof. Angus Kingon (North Carolina State University). We also benefited from significant interaction with Dr. Ron Kostoff (Office of Naval Research), see especially Fig. 4 in Porter et al. 2007 that indicates quite comparable coverage with Kostoff et al. 2007. The resulting search algorithm was further tuned and validated through review by 19 researchers with nanotechnology expertise (Porter et al. 2007).

  5. We experimented with the calculation of an h-index by country. The h-index is a measure that seeks to combine publication productivity and scientific impact (an index of h results from a researcher publishing h papers each with at least h citations, see Hirsch 2005). The results for citations in 2003 gave us h-index numbers as follows: US: 92; EU27: 70; Germany: 46; Japan: 44; and China: 43. This result suggests that the US retains an edge in quality of nanotechnology research despite dramatic gains of other countries in terms of quantity of research. However, the weight to be given to differences in these index figures is hard to estimate and it has not been recommended to apply the h-index to groups of researchers (Hirsch 2005).

  6. Nanotechnology publication in Chinese-language journals has continued to grow in recent years, although at a significantly lower rate than for nanotechnology publication by Chinese authors in English-language journals (Lin and Zhang 2007). There are substantial incentives for Chinese researchers to publish in English-language ISI journals; field research in China in 2007 by one of the authors of this article confirms that many leading Chinese nanotechnology researchers now publish mostly in English. Additionally, as Lin and Zhang note, Chinese-language nanotechnology publication is often a bridge to communicate results available in English to exclusively Chinese-speaking researchers and is typically not at the research frontier. Hence, while we expect that using SCI does undercount China’s total publication effort, available evidence suggests a relatively smaller effect on underestimating China’s overall scientific quality. However, further bibliometric investigation on the quality of Chinese-language nanotechnology publication is necessary to more systematically estimate these effects.

References

  • Glanzel W, Meyer M, Plessis M, Thijs B, Magerman T, Schlemmer B, Debackere K, Veugelers R (2003) Nanotechnology, analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavor. Report of Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Leuven, Belgium

  • Heinze T, Shapira P, Senker J, Kuhlmann S (2007) Identifying creative research accomplishments: methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics. Scientometrics 70(1):125–152

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch J (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(46):16569–16572

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huang Z, Chen H, Yip A, Ng G, Guo F, Chen Z, Roco M (2003) Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: country, institution and technology field. J Nanopart Res 5: 333–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huang Z, Chen H, Yan L, Roco M (2005) Longitudinal nanotechnology development (1991–2002): National Science Foundation funding and its impact on patents. J Nanopart Res 7:343–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hullmann A, Meyer M (2003) Publications and patents in nanotechnology: an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics 58(3):507–527

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lin MW, Zhang J (2007) Language trends in nanoscience and technology: the case of Chinese-language publications. Scientometrics 70(3):555–564

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff RN, Stump JA, Johnson D, Murday JS, Lau CGY, Tolles WM (2006) The structure and infrastructure of global nanotechnology literature. J Nanopart Res 8(3–4):301–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff RN, Koytcheff RG, Lau CGY (2007) Technical structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology literature. J Nanopart Res 9:701–724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miyazaki K, Islam N (2007) Nanotechnology systems of innovation—An analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation 27:661–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter A, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck D (2007) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. (August, Online First)

  • Zhou P, Leydesdorff L (2006) The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Res Policy 35(1):83–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt M, Bassecoulard E (2006) Delineating complex scientific fields by a hybrid lexical-citation method: an application to nanosciences. Inform Processing Management 42(6):1513–1531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker LG, Darby MR (2005) Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: initial results and Nanobank. Working Paper 11181, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA

Download references

Acknowledgments

Significant research assistance in database development was provided by Luciano Kay, Pratik Mehta, and Webb Myers. This research was undertaken at Georgia Tech with support by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society (Arizona State University), supported by the National Science Foundation (Award No. 0531194) and by the National Partnership for Managing Upstream Innovation: The Case of Nanoscience and Technology (North Carolina State University; NSF Award No. EEC-0438684). 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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Youtie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Youtie, J., Shapira, P. & Porter, A.L. Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. J Nanopart Res 10, 981–986 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-008-9360-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-008-9360-9

Keywords

Navigation