Advertisement

Identification and visualization of the intellectual structure and the main research lines in nanoscience and nanotechnology at the worldwide level

  • Teresa Muñoz-Écija
  • Benjamín Vargas-Quesada
  • Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez
Open Access
Perspectives

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to make manifest the intellectual and cognitive structure of nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) by means of visualization techniques. To this end, we used data from the Web of Science (WoS), delimiting the data to the category NST during the period of 2000–2013, retrieving a total of 198,275 documents. Through direct author citation of these works, we identified their origins and the seminal papers, and through word co-occurrence extracted from the titles and abstracts, the main lines of research were identified. In view of both structures, we may affirm that NST is a young scientific discipline in constant expansion, needing time to establish its foundations but showing a strongly interdisciplinary character; its development is furthermore dependent upon knowledge from other disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, or material sciences. We believe that this information may be very useful for the NST scientific community, as it reflects a large-scale analysis of the research lines of NST and how research has changed over time in the diverse areas of NST. This study is moreover intended to offer a useful tool for the NST scientific community, revealing at a glance the main research lines and landmark papers. Finally, the methodology used in this study can be replicated in any other field of science to explore its intellectual and cognitive structure.

Keywords

Co-words Direct citation Intellectual structure Research trends Historical roots Nanoscience & Nanotechnology Scientometrics 

Introduction

Nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) comprise the study, design, creation, synthesis, manipulation, and application of materials, devices, and functional systems by means of the control of the material at the nanoscale, as well as the exploitation of phenomena and properties of material at the nanoscale. It is a discipline that appears in the second half of the twentieth century, when Richard P. Feynman (1960) referred to the possibilities offered by the manipulation of material at the atomic scale. The discovery of the scanning tunneling microscope (Binnig and Rohrer 1983) in the 1980s opened the gates to the development of NST, as it allowed the scientific community to obtain new materials and minute machinery.

According to the literature, only in the past decade has NST taken off on an exponential voyage due to the advancements it holds for industry, health, the environment, and national security (Huang et al. 2011). Yet, negative social and environmental implications have also come to light, as well as a lack of knowledge about the risks that many of its applications could entail (Seaton and Donaldson 2005).

Many are the works that have studied the scientific literature in NST. For example, the study run by Braun et al. (1997) established a clearly exponential growth of the NST scientific production that started in the early 1990s on the basis of a dataset with the prefix nano in the title of science and technological journal papers (4152 papers) from Science Citation Index (ISI) in the period of 1986–1995. A year later, Meyer and Persson (1998) characterized nanotechnology showing its interdisciplinary nature. Using the same approach as Braun et al. (1997), they determined that the major rate growth of nano-paper is in natural and multidisciplinary science, while the field of engineering and material and life science would be less important in view of their negative rate of growth. The growth of NST has been registered both as scientific publications and as patents. Hence, the bibliometric perspective is ideal for observing scientific activity in this discipline, with its interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary characters (Schummer 2004) and its widespread economic and social implications.

Kostoff et al. (2006b) appraised the growth of the nanotechnology research literature in the Science Citation Index, from 4552 articles in 1991 to 33,060 articles in 2004, and another study pointed out that “Global nanotechnology research article production has exhibited exponential growth for more than a decade”. They studied more than 65,000 records related to NST in the Science Citation Index/Social Science Citation Index (SCI/SSCI) in 2005 (Kostoff et al. 2007b). Porter et al. (2008) displayed the nano research publication activity from 1990 to 2006 from the Science Citation Index, finding growth in the nano research activity to be higher from the year 2000 onward. The number of papers in NST contained in WoS journals shows a steady increase since 2000 (Chen et al. 2013). Another study concludes that the number of nanotechnology journals has been growing steadily since the late 1990s (Grieneisen 2010). Such growth is also reflected in the Scopus database, where the documents published show a nearly threefold growth of NST world share output. The main growth spurt is between 2007 and 2013, a period when its world share output practically doubled (Chinchilla-Rodríguez et al. 2016a).

Beyond matters of growth, in recent years, many researchers have conducted scientometric analysis to define nanotechnology and capture its scope by using lexical queries (Porter et al. 2008; Huang et al. 2011; Grieneisen and Zhang 2011; Arora et al. 2013, 2014); to identify all disciplines that NST encompasses exhibiting the interdisciplinary of NST (Porter and Youtie 2009); to explore the interdisciplinary characteristics of NST and investigate its intellectual structure (Jo et al. 2016); to give a global overview of the infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature through most cited authors, journal, and papers, and prolific authors, journal institutions, and countries (Kostoff et al. 2006b); to study the network of citation in nanotechnology for patents, institutions, countries, and technology fields (Li et al. 2007); to identify the core papers in NST and describe its genealogy (Kostoff et al. 2006a); to examine the cognitive structure, multidisciplinarity, and evolution of NST (Milojević 2012); or to examine the research paper and patents involved in the coming generation of active nanotechnologies to delineate phases and possible emerging research directions (Suominen et al. 2016).

In addition, bibliometric techniques have helped to study the development of certain subfields or subjects within NST, for instance carbon nanotubes (Munoz-Sandoval 2014), carbon nanostructures (Terekhov 2015), nanoparticle generation by laser ablation in liquids (Barcikowski et al. 2009), nanotoxicology (Ostrowski et al. 2009), nano-energy (Menéndez-Manjón et al. 2011; Guan and Liu 2014), or microelectromechanical systems (MENS) (Hu and Liu 2015).

Other works have applied bibliometric techniques to analyze the evolution and position of NST in the international context, so as to gauge the scientific performance of countries (Chen et al. 2013; Chinchilla-Rodríguez et al. 2016a); to compare developed and developing countries (Jafari and Zarghami 2016); to highlight activity and visibility in the global landscape of some countries, among them Russia (Terekhov 2012) or the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science (Lavrik et al. 2015), in Latin America (Invernizzi et al. 2015; Chinchilla-Rodríguez et al. 2016b), in Mexico (Lau et al. 2014), in Venezuela (López Cadenas et al. 2011), or Pakistan (Bajwa and Yaldram 2012); to evaluate the productivity, dominant research topics, and diffusion patterns in Russia, China, and India using papers from WoS and patents from US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Liu et al. 2009); to identify the risky nanomaterials that the nano-environmental, health, and safety community might examine through study of patent literature from USPTO and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies consumer product database (Leitch et al. 2012); or to identify growth trends, research topics, and the evolution in National Science Foundation (NSF) funding and commercial patenting activities at USPTO (Huang et al. 2006).

Among the array of bibliometric techniques available today, science mapping is particularly useful for analyzing and visualizing the social and intellectual structure or dynamics of scientific research fronts (Braam et al. 1991a, b; Noyons et al. 1999; Börner et al. 2003). These representations, dating back to the seventies, allow users to explore relationships involving the selected unit of analysis (Small 1973; Small and Griffith 1974; Small and Sweeney 1985; Small et al. 1985). In the 1980s, they underwent a controversial period of development and virtual brainstorming to confirm their validity (Leydesdorff 1987; Hicks 1987; Tijseen et al. 1987). This led to a slowdown in the absorption of scientific policy in the 1990s, when more user-friendly interfaces became commonplace. In the past 10 years, their use has been extended and their utility is a matter of consensus, due largely to the greater availability of data, with important expert contributions in the field of computation specializing in information visualization (Börner et al. 2003). Today’s science maps have benefited from a combination of new algorithms, the enhanced potency of calculation, and the robustness of results, as one can generate and guarantee a stable template at the worldwide level to be used as the basis for analysis (Moya-Anegón et al. 2004, 2007; Boyack et al. 2005; Leydesdorff and Rafols 2009; Rafols et al. 2010).

The development of techniques such as overlay maps (Rafols et al. 2010) makes it possible to generate such stable templates of scientific maps at the global level, for their later use to compare aspects of an organization, a field of research or the scientific output contained in databases such as the Web of Science (Thomson Corporation 2015b) or Scopus (Elsevier 2015). The cognitive structure of a scientific domain may thereby be analyzed in a geographic sense, or to perceive its evolution and the emerging lines of research that may be a priority for the economic policy of a government (Leydesdorff and Rafols 2011; Leydesdorff et al. 2015).

Such maps can thereafter serve as units of analysis regarding authors, documents, journals, or relevant term/words. Authorship is used to trace the social and intellectual structure (scientific paradigm) of a discipline, field, or specialty (Chen 1999; Garfield et al. 2003). Documents are used to visualize a knowledge domain or to assess research (Small 1999; Noyons et al. 1999). Journals can project a macro view of science or differentiation in a discipline (Leydesdorff 1987; Boyack et al. 2009).

Direct citation networks are considered the most efficient means of exploring how the scientific paradigm of a discipline is built through its own history and development (Garfield et al. 2003; Garfield 2004, 2009). Garfield points out that the most relevant nodes shown in a network constitute a landmark event in the broader development of a knowledge domain.

Although bibliometric techniques use citation analysis to study the yield of a discipline in terms of the impact or strength of influence of research efforts, using citation in the present work has nothing to do with the use (or misuse) of the journal impact factor for the promotion and financing of authors. We do not attempt to analyze the quality of research; citation is merely used to follow the flow of ideas and knowledge recorded as references made by authors when they root or support their ideas in background papers (Narin 1976; Garfield 1979). Mention of a document is a means of manifesting the relationship between a citing work and the cited work at a particular point in the development of research (Sandison 1989; Egghe and Rousseau 1990).

Our perspective with this understanding of citation focuses on identifying research topics or disciplines in cognitive networks and uncovering the intellectual structure of a discipline by the use of direct citation networks where each node represents a piece of knowledge and each link denotes the knowledge flow (Newman 2003). The analysis of citation networks, from a scientometric perspective, can help identify core literature (Potter 1988), retrace the diffusion of ideas or trace the structure of knowledge (Soper et al. 1990), or look at communication patterns, identifying the most influential authors and papers (Lawani 1980). The interpretations brought out through citation analysis applied to books and journals of a specific discipline can also testify as to its historical movement and determinant production at the national or international level (Lawani 1981).

The use of journal articles—adopted in this works as a single evaluation unit—is based on the notion that journal literature is the most formal channel of communication for scientists (Bellardo 1980) and lies at the heart of scientific and technical communication (Tomajko and Drake 1985), allowing the dissemination of information across geographical borders by scientists in any field of knowledge (Borgman 1989). In no case were journals from WoS used to quantify impact. This journal set was selected because WoS provides mature, reliable source material for mapping science (Leydesdorff et al. 2010).

Co-word analysis is a means of studying the association between the most representative terms of scientific literature, likewise lending the opportunity to obtain further information about the underlying structure and the overt tendencies of a given scientific discipline (Ding et al. 2001; Cantos-Mateos et al. 2012). Words themselves lead us to familiarity with living science and have the capacity to reflect scientific, social, and political contents that pertain to the most controversial domains or least understood emerging areas (Cantos-Mateos et al. 2014). The combination of frequency of appearance of terms, together with the techniques of spatial representation based on multidimensional scaling (MDS), provides us with information about the main research topics or those that prevail over a given period of time.

We can trace co-word analysis back to the 1980s (Callon et al. 1983; Leydesdorff 1989), when it was described as the best method to know and explain the cognitive structure of a field at the level of research specialties (Small and Griffith 1974; Braam et al. 1991a, b), moreover capable of revealing new developments of a field over time (Peters and van Raan 1993). This type of analysis was applied to polymer chemistry (Callon et al. 1991), to neural network investigation (Van Raan and Tijseen 1993), to information retrieval (Ding et al. 2001), to Information Sciences (Van Den Besselaar and Heimeriks 2006), to the links between opportunistic infections (IOs) and HIV/AIDS (Onyancha and Ocholla 2005), to the Economy (Cahlík and Jiřina 2006), to secure information (Lee 2008), Ecology (Neff and Corley 2009), to biodiversity and conservation (Liu et al. 2011), or to corporate social responsibility (Qin et al. 2016), among others.

It is assumed that NST is an attractive new scientific discipline, in which many researchers, countries, and institutions want to be involved. Its study by the use of different bibliometric, scientometric, or informetric methodologies stands as a sign of the interest that NST holds in the worldwide R&D context given the many economic benefits for developed and developing countries (Wood et al. 2003) with their variety of impending needs (Beumer 2016).

Our hypothesis stems from the premise that the bibliographic references cited in research papers are an indicator of the influence that they have on the scientific community, conditioning scientific progress and provoking new ideas and subject areas; co-word analysis furthermore marks changes in the different research lines that make up a discipline. Accordingly, our study has a triple objective. Firstly, it aims to detect the origin of and trace the evolution of the intellectual structure of NST by means of the analysis of direct citation of works. Secondly, it attempts to identify and analyze the cognitive structure over time (active research lines) by means of co-word maps to exhibit changes taking place in NST. Thirdly, the methodology described offers another perspective of NST as a discipline by means of citation and co-word analysis.

Materials and methods

The Web of Science (WoS) was the database utilized to retrieve the set of documents on NST. Up to the time when this study was undertaken, it was the only multidisciplinary and international database containing this category, created in 2005, and composed following the Journal Citation Report (JCR) (Thomson Corporation 2015a) Science Edition 2014 by 73 journals. This source was the foundation of our search strategy. An abbreviated journal title query was subsequently designed and entered into the WoS database search engine for the version Science Citation Index Expanded 2014 (Appendix A).

Evidently, the NST category in WoS does not cover all the journals that publish articles about NST. It in-cludes only the best journals. For this reason, we decid-ed to design our search strategy using the JCR journals in the NST category, as the top journals of a discipline can be viewed as a sound tool for scientific evaluation (Garfield 1972, 1980). Although the number of NST journals has shown steady growth since the late 1990s, many articles about NST are also published in multidisciplinary science journals such as Science or Nature, or in highly specific discipline journals such as Angewandte Chemie or Applied Physics Letters (Grieneisen 2010). This is because many NST research lines in NST are not yet mature—still in the launching stage. As we needed to choose the journal set that would best represent NST as a discipline, we looked to JCR, whose journals might contain references to articles published elsewhere, that is, not exclusively in specialized NST journals.

Our search strategy used the field Publication Name, as this field is less problematic than others; it can retrieve more than 100,000 documents when combined with other fields (Arencibia-Jorge et al. 2009), yet in this case, it was limited by the time frame of study.

The period 2000–2013 was selected based on the papers of Grieneisen and Zhang (2011), who state that since 1998, nanoscale studies have grown in alarming proportions in the entire body of research. In addition, the choice of a short time period allows for the published documents to play on an equal level with the documents published previously, which may have received numerous citations; in short time periods, the documents involved are all recent and have not yet generated substantial citation (Kostoff et al. 2008). Subsequently, we chose 2013 as the last year for the sampling time frame.

The discovery of graphene in 2004, the design of new programs and software like Gaussian (2003 or 2009) or SIESTA in 2002, the use of nanowire for solar cells or as nanosensors for the detection of biological and chemical species in 2001, the characterization of gold nanoparticles in 2004, etc., these are only a few examples of core papers in NST published in the first decade of this century.

In June of 2015, we launched our search into the WoS database search engine. The number of retrieved documents (Fig. 1) from 2000 to 2013 was 198,275 and includes the following types: articles (187,949), proceedings (26,606), reviews (4066), editorial materials (3116), new items (1378), corrections (1223), letters (386), biographical items (80), meeting abstracts (70), book chapters (6), bibliographies (5), and reprints (2).
Fig. 1

NST-retrieved documents from WoS and relevant terms

Intellectual structure and detection of seminal papers

Citation-Assisted Background (CAB) (Kostoff and Shlesinger 2005) was used to identify seminal papers. CAB is based upon the assumption that seminal documents tend to be highly cited by the active researchers who belong to a specific scientific discipline; hence, any reference to these seminal documents will tend to be positive (Kostoff and Shlesinger 2005; Kostoff et al. 2006a). A file was generated where all downloaded documents were combined and a citation analysis was performed to identify the most cited documents of the dataset, using CitNetExplorer (Van Eck and Waltman 2014b), for visualizing and analyzing citation networks of scientific publications. This tool was used to create and visualize the intellectual network. The uncovered network featured a static structure that relied on papers as units of analysis and citations as units of measure.

The values applied to visualize information must range between 25 and 125 (White 2003). In our case, a total of 80 most-cited papers was the cutoff established, because a higher number of nodes would show too many relationships, and the viewer would perceive excessive information and an overlap of labels. This problem is known as an incomprehensible “clutter of links”.

After identifying the 80 most cited documents, we downloaded the most-cited documents which were not included in the initial dataset for one of two reasons: (a) either the documents had been published in journals that did not belong to the category of JCR NST or (b) the documents had been published before the year 2000. To download these most-cited documents from WoS, we executed different searches in the Title field, i.e., each most-cited title paper was tracked down in the Title field in WoS. This proved to be a crucial step in the process of generating the network using CitNetExplorer software. Otherwise, the nodes would have appeared as isolated nodes instead of as related nodes.

After this process, all the new downloaded papers were input into the initial dataset and a new citation analysis was performed, again using CitNetExplorer, showing the 80 most cited papers identified above and their relationships.

We should point out that downloading the most cited papers that were not included in the initial data set proved to be an essential step in our methodology, enabling us to explore the intellectual structure of NST and the relations between its nodes. If our network had only shown the most cited documents, no relationship with documents published before the year 2000 or with documents not published in JCR NST journals would have become apparent.

For the detection of the different clusters, CitNetExplorer applies an algorithm based on a variant of the modularity, by virtue of which the documents appear grouped in different clusters depending on the function of the distance in between them, so that the documents with a high degree of relatedness are found next to each other, and therefore form part of one same cluster (Van Eck and Waltman 2014a).

Cognitive structure

Co-word maps allow us to represent the cognitive structure of a discipline, identifying the research lines that form it and detecting future lines of research by means of clustering techniques (Callon et al. 1986; He 1999).

The detection of the main research lines and their evolution using longitudinal maps or networks reveals the best consolidated lines as well as the emergent ones. Used here as the unit of analysis were the works contained in the titles and the abstracts of the set of documents retrieved (Fig. 1); their co-occurrence as units of measurement; and, as the tool for the generation and visualization of the network, VOSviewer software (Van Eck et al. 2010; Van Eck and Waltman 2015).

In an effort to control the acronyms presented by many of the terms contained in the data file, we generated a thesaurus1 with the most frequent acronyms. The second function of this thesaurus was to eliminate the terms of little significance contained in the documents. However, no thorough normalization of the data was carried out, which might have distorted the reality of our unit of analysis (words).

The number of words in each map increased steadily due to the rise in scientific production over the past decade. To avoid excessive noise and show only the most significant terms, a minimum occurrence threshold of 5 was established (a term was shown if it appeared at least five times). Furthermore, the VOSviewer default setting was used, meaning that 60% of the most relevant terms were displayed for each period. At any rate, a cluster should have at least ten words to be represented.

To detect the different clusters, the VOSviewer algorithm—an improved version of multidimensional scaling (MDS)—was used. This enabled us to avoid problems associated with MDS visualization such as generating circular representations or displaying the most relevant terms in the center of the representations (Van Eck and Waltman 2010).

The creation of a single map might entail some loss of information about changes in the main research lines of a discipline over time. In addition, because the number of documents per year has increased dramatically since 2000, new research trends have sprung up. With the utmost objective of representing the evolution of the cognitive structure of NST over time, without provoking a loss of structural information, we opted to make maps applying a temporary division into four sub-periods: longer periods (4 years) for the first temporal windows (2000–2003 and 2004–2007) and shorter ones for the following (3-year) periods (2008–2010 and 2011–2013) (Vargas-Quesada et al. 2010; Moya-Anegón et al. 2006). This basically resolved the problem related with the number of terms that made up each map, since the number of documents that comprised scientific output in NST in 2000–2007 is inferior to the figure for 2008–2010. Therefore, the generation of maps covering the same number of years can be said to mask reality in the displays owing to this difference in the number of terms intervening.

Each one of the circles depicted in the maps makes reference to a term, its size being proportional to the number of co-occurrences with other terms. The proximity of some terms with others indicates the association or similarity existent among them, that is, the nearer two terms are to each other, the stronger their association. To the contrary, two terms far from each other point to a low level of mutual association. The color of the circles indicates belonging to a cluster, and every cluster or grouping, with its nodes, is therefore depicted in a different color.

Results and discussion

The average growth of NST scientific output in the time frames established for creating our maps was 55.78%. However, the period of 2004–2007 showed an outstanding growth rate of 102.17%, followed by years 2000–2003 (43.32%), 2011–2013 (39.20%), and 2008–2010 (38.41%). As for the annual growth rate, 2007 is the most remarkable year, witnessing an increase of 41.24% in NST output, followed by 2006, with 25.02%, and 2003, with a growth rate of 24.74%.

Focusing on the evolution of the number of most relevant terms for each period again signals 2004–2007 as the window of greatest growth (131.11%), after which the figures remain quite stable, from 44.66 to 45.53%.

A comparison of the average growth in the number of documents and the number of terms reveals a peak in the first periods of study, followed by a relatively stable trend in later periods.

Intellectual structure NST—seminal papers

Figure 2 shows the citation network with the 80 most-cited works throughout 2000–2013. The oldest of these papers detected goes back to 1958, and the most recent one is from 2009. Nodes of the citation network were cited at least 607 times from the dataset with 197,042 documents, leading to a sum total of 1,262,640 references. They appear in seven clusters that were studied selecting the Drill down option of CitNetExplorer, which offers an intuitive way of moving through the colored clusters. The maximum number of nodes in the clusters is 23 and the minimum is 1, because the nodes that form every cluster have been cited more than 607 times by the dataset.
Fig. 2

The 80 most cited document networks in NST. Available in high resolution at: http://www.ugr.es/local/benjamin/maps/Figure-2.png

Blue cluster: Nanochemistry and Nanomedicine (21 nodes)

Inside this cluster (Fig. 3), four different subgroups can be identified. To the right, we find papers by authors Murray et al. (1993), Alivisatos (1996), Decher (1997), Chan and Nie (1998), Bruchez et al. (1998), Peng et al. (2000), Huynh et al. (2002), Yu et al. (2003), Michalet et al. (2005), and Medintz et al. (2005). All of them concentrated their research activities on Quantum dots: composition; shape; size; and spectroscopic, electronic, and thermodynamic attributes. Alivisatos’ work is considered the most important in that area, bearing considerable influence on posterior research. In the middle are works related to Supramolecular chemistry. These papers were published by Bohren and Huffman (1983), Kreibig and Vollmer (1995), Kelly et al. (2003), Daniel and Astruc (2004), Love et al. (2005), and Burda et al. (2005). On the left appear papers about Optical and spectroscopic nanoparticle attributes. It is easy to see a major gap between the early work (Johnson and Christy 1972) and the subsequent development around 1997, when interest in this field peaked. All the areas of this cluster are seen to be associated with the research undertaken in Nanochemistry and Nanomedicine.
Fig. 3

Nanochemistry and Nanomedicine. Available in high resolution at: http://www.ugr.es/local/benjamin/maps/Figure-3.png

Orange cluster: Nanomaterial characteristics and manufacturing techniques (13 nodes)

Works of this cluster (Fig. 4) are focused on the study of bottom-up nanomaterial manufacturing techniques, although we can divide the cluster into three sections. Papers on the right explore nanomaterial manufacturing, e.g., involving nanowires or nanobelts. Wagner and Ellis’ work in 1964 was the forefather in this field (Wagner and Ellis 1964). Afterward came works by Morales and Lieber (1998), Cui et al. (2001), Pan et al. (2001), Huang et al. (2001), Xia et al. (2003), and Wang and Song (2006), the latter cited because of his review of one-dimensional nanostructures.
Fig. 4

Nanomaterial characteristics and manufacturing techniques Available in high resolution at: http://www.ugr.es/local/benjamin/maps/Figure-4.png

On the other side of the map, we find works about the manufacturing of devices to generate power energy or chemicals using electrochemistry techniques. Fujishima (1972) was the pioneer in this area, but it was not until 1991 when Oregan and Grätzel published a work that sorted out the problems suggested by Fujishima, using dye-sensitized colloidal titanium oxide to create efficient and economical solar cells (Oregan and Grätzel 1991). The papers by Hoffmann et al. (1995), Asahi et al. (2001), and Grätzel (2001) address environmental concerns through semiconductor catalysis, using solar irradiation or interior lighting to generate cheap and flexible photovoltaic cells based on nanocrystalline materials and conducting polymer films as a new generation of photoelectrochemical cells. Law’s node appears a bit separate from the others because this paper used nanowires as solar cells to further increase their efficacy (Law et al. 2005).

Brown cluster: Physics and Chemistry (18 nodes)

Here (Fig. 5), we find the fundamental research in NST associated with Physics and Chemistry. Physics occupied the right side of the map, and Chemical theory is on the left, in turn divided into two different groups: Quantum chemistry and Computational chemistry.
Fig. 5

Physics and Chemistry. Available in high resolution at: http://www.ugr.es/local/benjamin/maps/Figure-5.png

On the side of Physics, deserving mention is a work from 1965 presenting equations that solved the density functional theory (DFT) (Kohn and Sham 1965), whose theorem was published the previous year. However, this theory was modified in 1990 because of its imprecision, especially for chemical applications. Another contribution to DFT is that of Perdew et al. (1996), the second most cited work in the citation network, about the exact exchange-correlation functional called generalized gradient approximation (the first did not solve Kohn and Sham’s equation). In addition, Lee et al. (1988) and Becke’s (1993) works encouraged the exchange-correlation functional.

The projector augmented wave method (PAW) was developed in order to calculate electronic structures through the pseudopotential method and linearized augmented plane-wave method (Blöchl 1994).

Kresse’s works contributed to the development of essential principles (ab-initio) of DFT, combining different methods to quickly solve Kohn and Sham’s equations (Kresse and Hafner 1993, 1994; Kresse and Furthmüller 1996a, b; Kresse and Joubert 1999). The percentage of citation of these key papers is very high, indeed comprising most of the highly cited works.

On the other side, the quantum chemistry group contains four nodes. Papers by Troullier and Soler are represented on the right. The first explored pseudopotentials, with applications to some materials through plane-wave calculations (Troullier and Martins 1991). Soler and colleagues’ work designed a program called Spanish Initiative for Electronic Simulations with Thousands of Atoms (SIESTA) that combined DFT-related methods to calculate electronic structures and ab initio molecular dynamics (Soler et al. 2002). Slightly to the left appear Lee and Becke’s works. Lee and colleagues developed a Colle-Salvetti correlation energy formula as a functional of the electron density (Lee et al. 1988), while Becke presented an improvement of the thermochemical Kohn-Sham density-functional theories with gradient corrections for exchange-correlations (Becke 1993).

The computational chemistry subgroup is located under the quantum chemistry group. The different software versions of Gaussian (03 and 09) (Frisch et al. 2004, 2009) are displayed in this group. These programs have been used in NST to run a variety of electronic structure calculations and to predict molecular properties and chemical reactions. Soler’s work also pertains to this group, as it proposed a computer program to implement SIESTA.

Most nodes here have been highly cited. Hence, it can be said that this is prestigious work presenting ideas or discoveries that proved essential for the development of NST, as it is impossible to study applied science without fundamental research.

Green cluster: Carbon nanomaterials (23 nodes)

This cluster (Fig. 6) reflects a current research boom: carbon nanomaterials, such as nanotubes or graphene. The first work was published by Hummers and Offeman (1958): graphite was synthesized in order to obtain graphite oxide. Several decades later came the landmark discovery of carbon nanotubes by Iijima (1991), which revolutionized NST and inspired prolific research by Tans et al. (1998), Kong et al. (2000), Baughman et al. (2002), and so on. Nanotubes led to the development of graphene in Novoselov et al. (2004). Nowadays, many basic and applied research efforts are focused on graphene—how to synthesize this nanomaterial and how to handle it without breaking or modifying it or finding new applications according to its electronic, optic, thermal, and mechanic characteristics. Hence, as the map shows, all nodes below the graphene node have dealt with this material.
Fig. 6

Carbon nanomaterials. Available in high resolution at: http://www.ugr.es/local/benjamin/maps/Figure-6.png

A glance at the green cluster shows that many nodes have been cited in a short period of time. In other words, work with graphene tends to be highly cited. This new research line shows great promise for the future.

Pink cluster: Nanocatalysis (3 nodes)

Works in this cluster (Fig. 2) involve the synthesis of nanoporous materials and the application of mesoporous (pore size to 2 from 5 nm) materials in the synthesis of chemical products, known as nanocatalysis (Kresge et al. 1992; Beck et al. 1992; Zhao et al. 1998).

Light blue cluster: Organic electronics (1 node)

Research on producing photovoltaic power using polymer devices is displayed in this cluster (Fig. 2). In particular, Li and colleagues’ work studied photovoltaic polymer cells whose electric characteristics (conductivity) lend them to further applications (Li et al. 2005).

Yellow cluster: Semiconductor devices (1 node)

There is only one node is this cluster: Sze (1981). This work is held to be a main reference in the field of semiconductor devices (Fig. 2).

Cognitive structure—research patterns and emerging trends

This section shows the evolution of NST research from 2000 to 2013 by means of science maps generated with VOSviewer. Tables 1 and 2 make it easy to schematically view the clusters identified, using the VOSviewer algorithm, in the different periods and their relationships with the rest of the clusters.
Table 1

Science maps NST

Table 2

Identified clusters between 2000 and 2013

2000–2003

2004–2007

2008–2010

2011–2013

Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes

Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes

Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes

Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes + Organic electronics

Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes + Biotechnology and Biomedicine

Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes

Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes + Optics and Electronics

Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes + Optics and Electronics

Mechanical characteristics of materials

Mechanical characteristics of materials + Physical characteristics of materials

Mechanical characteristics of materials + Physical characteristics of materials

Mechanical characteristics of materials + Physical characteristics of materials

Optics and Electronics

Optics and Electronics

Biotechnology and Biomedicine: Biosensing

Biotechnology and Biomedicine: Biosensing

Physical characteristics of materials

Biotechnology and Biomedicine

Biotechnology and Biomedicine: Therapeutic biomedicine

Biotechnology and Biomedicine: Therapeutic biomedicine

  

Organic electronics

 
Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 present the 15 terms with the highest score (according to VOSviewer) for each cluster and for each period studied. None of these 15 terms is repeated in other periods. Yet, if we increase the cutoff to 30 or even to 50 terms, there are repetitions—even though the order of occurrence varies. This is an indication that the evolution of NST research is quite rapid, and the research lines tend to change as new advances are made (Tables 7 and 8).
Table 3

Most relevant terms of Optics and Electronics cluster

2000–2003

Score

2004–2007

Score

2008–2010 (joined SNBUP)

Score

2011–2013 (joined SNBUP)

Score

External voltage

7.00

Nanoscale morphology

16.58

Electric vehicle

11.16

Semiconductor photocatalysis

13.09

Lasing action

5.59

Charge collection

15.00

Pulverization

9.64

MoSe2

12.83

Individual single walled carbon nanotube

5.32

Improved performance

11.29

Graphite anode

9.30

mAh g1

9.79

Quantum rod

4.55

Polymer solar cell

10.49

Battery electrode

9.16

Visible light photocatalytic hydrogen

8.98

Logic function

4.29

Bulk heterojunction solar cell

10.04

Rechargeable lithium battery

8.53

Advanced electrode material

8.89

Kilowatts per square centimeter

3.60

Donor acceptor interface

9.61

Charge capacity

8.13

Robust adhesion

8.42

Electrical transport measurement

3.55

Charge generation

9.54

Energy storage device

7.48

Asymmetric supercapacitor

8.35

Transport study

3.39

Biological labeling

9.12

Cycle life

7.41

Flexible energy storage device

8.21

Low temperature growth

3.31

Plastic solar cell

8.30

Fascinating property

7.39

Superior cyclability

8.21

Modules for experiments in stellar astrophysics

3.06

Graphene nanoribbon

8.05

Supercapacitor electrode material

7.09

High energy lithium ion battery

8.11

Density of states

3.02

Poly3 hexylthiophene butyric acid methyl ester

7.95

High charge storage capacity

6.81

Capacitive energy storage

7.88

Laser emission

3.02

Semiconducting polymer

7.94

Electrochemical energy storage

6.80

New electrode material

7.87

CdSe quantum dot

2.80

Solid state lighting

7.69

Hydrocarbon fuel

6.77

Excellent mechanical strength

7.70

Dimensional plasmon

2.77

Overall conversion efficiency

7.10

Capacity fading

6.75

High performance libs

7.66

Miniband transport

2.77

Multiple exciton generation

7.06

Gradual reduction

6.64

Nanostructured electrode material

7.27

Table 4

Most relevant terms of Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes cluster

2000–2003 (Joined Biotechnology and Biomedicine)

Score

2004–2007

Score

2008–2010 (Joined Optics and Electronics)

Score

2011–2013 (Joined Optics and Electronics)

Score

ZnO nanowire

20.81

Nanometer wall thickness

11.13

Electric vehicle

11.16

Semiconductor photocatalysis

13.09

Acid methyl ester

16.34

Cd2 ion

9.85

Pulverization

9.64

MoSe2

12.83

Sensitization

16.28

TiO2 nanotube array

9.22

Graphite anode

9.30

mAh g1

9.79

Solar energy conversion

14.13

Gold nanocage

8.76

Battery electrode

9.16

Visible light photocatalytic hydrogen

8.98

Catalytic growth

13.28

Nanometer pore diameter

8.76

Rechargeable lithium battery

8.53

Advanced electrode material

8.89

Butyric acid methyl ester

12.95

Silver nanocube

8.47

Charge capacity

8.13

Robust adhesion

8.42

Shell thickness

12.77

Polyaniline nanofiber

8.31

Energy storage device

7.48

Asymmetric supercapacitor

8.35

Core shell particle

9.93

Potentiostatic anodization

8.21

Cycle life

7.41

Flexible energy storage device

8.21

ZnO nanorod

9.83

Photoanode

7.42

Fascinating property

7.39

Superior cyclability

8.21

Electrospinning

9.55

Liberation

7.15

Supercapacitor electrode material

7.09

High energy lithium ion battery

8.11

Nanobelt

8.93

Titania nanotube array

6.80

High charge storage capacity

6.81

Capacitive energy storage

7.88

Silver nanowire

8.81

Block truncation coding

6.79

Electrochemical energy storage

6.80

New electrode material

7.87

Novel nanostructure

8.81

Chemical activity

6.46

Hydrocarbon fuel

6.77

Excellent mechanical strength

7.70

Soil

8.59

Lithium ion secondary battery

6.23

Capacity fading

6.75

High performance libs

7.66

Polyfluorene

8.42

Same chemical composition

6.16

Gradual reduction

6.64

Nanostructured electrode material

7.27

Table 5

Most relevant terms of Biotechnology and Biomedicine cluster

2000–2003 (joined SNBUP)

Score

2004–2007

Score

2008–2010 (Biosensing)

Score

2008–2010 (Therapeutic biomedicine)

Score

2011–2013 (Biosensing)

Score

2011–2013 (Therapeutic biomedicine)

Score

ZnO nanowire

20.81

Photothermal therapy

9.97

Novel glucose biosensor

6.66

Abdominal cavity

8.63

Chemical class

10.07

Marine organism

6.91

Acid methyl ester

16.34

Unique optical property

8.85

Biotechnology application

6.32

Significant obstacle

7.28

Complex biological environment

5.82

Biological identity

6.00

Sensitization

16.28

Mesoporous silica nanoparticle

8.81

Droplet microfluidic

5.47

Harm

7.11

Luminogen

5.31

Cellular machinery

5.48

Solar energy conversion

14.13

Protein engineering

8.18

Excellent platform

5.25

Implantable medical device

6.23

Care diagnostic device

5.20

Tissue penetration depth

5.41

Catalytic growth

13.28

Nanometer nanoparticle

7.97

Graphene oxide surface

4.72

Surrogate

6.02

Existing camera unit

5.13

Unique size

5.22

Butyric acid methyl ester

12.95

Electrospun nanofiber

7.10

Norepinephrine

4.66

Vivo delivery

5.32

Dioxetane

5.04

Ce6

5.08

Shell thickness

12.77

Cellular toxicity

6.93

Complementary dna strand

4.55

Asbestos

5.25

Phosphoryloxy

5.04

Photodynamic therapy efficacy

4.72

Core shell particle

9.93

Arsenal

6.63

TNT detection

4.10

Apparent cytotoxicity

5.18

Powerful technology

4.26

Diseased cell

4.69

ZnO nanorod

9.83

S aureus

6.45

Bioelectronic

4.04

Novel form

5.15

Microfluidic paper

4.25

Modern medicine

4.65

Electrospinning

9.55

Gram-negative bacterium

6.42

Background fluorescence

4.03

Endosomal compartment

5.12

Resource limited setting

4.15

ICP MS analysis

4.48

Nanobelt

8.93

Cancer treatment

6.36

Non-enzymatic glucose sensor

4.01

Early onset

4.81

Aggregation-induced emission characteristics

4.07

High photothermal conversion efficiency

4.25

Silver nanowire

8.81

Cancer diagnosis

6.23

Wide linear response

3.89

Nanoparticle type

4.76

Microfluidic paper based analysis devices

4.06

New era

4.17

Novel nanostructure

8.81

Related technology

6.10

Epinephrine

3.82

Protein corona

4.66

Fluorogen

4.03

Controlled drug delivery

4.15

Soil

8.59

Antibacterial property

6.04

Novel graphene

3.78

Human exposure

4.48

Catecholamine

3.96

Vivo biocompatibility

4.08

Polyfluorene

8.42

Cancer diagnostic

5.85

Good electrocatalytic activity

3.75

Human cancer cell

4.41

Efficient platform

3.89

GelMA

4.07

Table 6

Most relevant terms of Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes cluster

2000–2003

Score

2004–2007

Score

2008–2010

Score

2011–2013

Score

Organic thin film transistor

11.50

Hydrophilic polymer

7.36

Few layer graphene films

16.71

Rich physic

16.04

Non-volatile memory

8.60

Novel nanoscale

7.17

Transparent conducting film

15.10

WSe2

12.19

Optical application

7.43

Superhydrophilicity

5.95

Exciting potential

13.48

PTB7

11.65

Design consideration

5.52

New architecture

5.66

Scalable technique

13.45

MoS2 monolayer

11.02

Ferroelectricity

5.36

Microscale device

5.36

Graphene electrode

12.58

Bilayer MoS2

10.10

Optical switch

4.95

Superhydrophobic coating

5.12

Nitrogen-doped graphene

12.14

Entire visible spectrum

9.65

Luminescence efficiency

4.20

High gain

4.94

Arbitrary substrates

11.20

Standard AM

9.47

Molecular monolayer

3.78

Superhydrophobicity

4.75

Large-scale growth

10.99

MoS2 transistor

9.08

Alkyl

3.71

Further optimization

4.57

Liquid phase exfoliation

10.80

Ionic motion

8.71

Energy consumption

3.61

Optical coherence tomography

4.19

Individual graphene sheet

10.62

Terminology

8.57

Carbon nanotube field effect transistor

3.44

Continuous flow separation

4.14

Large area graphene

10.18

Efficiency limitation

8.31

Strontium titanate

3.36

Enhanced mixing

4.06

Optoelectronic property

10.02

Valley polarization

8.14

Atomic force microscopy cantilever

3.34

Crust

4.03

Thick sheet

9.17

Efficient polymer solar cell

8.03

Conductive substrate

3.19

Bath temperature

3.99

Graphene oxide film

9.04

Reduced charge recombination

7.92

Charge fluctuation

2.97

Lithographic approach

3.85

Single sheet

8.93

PEC water splitting

7.80

Table 7

Most relevant terms of Physical and mechanical characteristics of materials cluster

2000–2003 (Mechanical)

Score

2000–2003 (Physical)

Score

2004–2007

Score

2008–2010

Score

2011–2013

Score

Solid oxide fuel cell

5.11

Magnesium alloy AZ31

5.66

Mechanical reinforcement

5.95

Enhanced strength

6.99

Local property

5.76

Stage process

3.66

Continuous dynamic recrystallization

3.96

Simultaneous increase

5.07

Effective reinforcement

3.74

Video recording

5.20

High capacity

3.54

Ultrafine grained

3.94

Annealing time t

3.24

Watt per meter Kelvin

2.92

Strong size dependence

3.73

Spark plasma

3.52

Accumulative roll bonding

3.08

Filler material

2.98

Dimensional finite element simulation

2.84

Tafel analysis

3.09

High temperature stability

3.24

Peak value

2.96

Nanotube polymer composite

2.84

Concrete

2.54

Random texture

2.57

Hall petch relationship

3.21

Nanocrystalline metal

2.69

MHz range

2.59

Ultimate strength

2.50

Si particle

2.45

Yttrium oxide

3.17

Recrystallization mechanism

2.46

Ultrafine grain size

2.54

Macromolecular structure

2.47

Relevant temperature range

2.31

Columnar grain structure

3.03

Flow instability

2.45

Low ductility

2.41

Disclination

2.18

Optimum balance

2.25

Coating property

3.02

Continuous recrystallization

2.43

Good electrical conductivity

2.40

Large strain

2.09

Primary focus

2.20

Coating stir weld

2.97

Route c

2.43

Ultrafine grained microstructure

2.38

Damaged region

2.09

Outstanding mechanical property

2.16

Solid matrix

2.97

High pressure torsion

2.39

Inducing

2.31

Minimally

2.07

Segregation behavior

2.16

Multicomponent system

2.92

Equal channel angular pressing

2.34

Surface mechanical attrition treatment

2.29

Major mechanism

2.04

Thick sheet

2.10

Fold symmetry

2.90

Silicon nanotube

2.31

Microwave sintering

2.25

Extrusion texture

2.02

Multistep

2.08

Load transfer

2.86

Hot deformation behavior

2.30

Deformability

2.20

Crystal form

1.86

LMC

1.99

Automotive industry

2.85

Grain size dependence

2.19

Rapid heating

2.08

Higher yield strength

1.86

Cyclic strain

1.96

Table 8

Most relevant terms of Organic electronics cluster

2008–2010

Score

Minority carrier diffusion length

11.72

Polymer donor

8.27

Vertical phase separation

8.19

High absorption coefficient

7.87

Fullerene acceptor

7.61

Polymer morphology

6.14

Solvent-free ionic liquid electrolyte

5.98

Reduced graphene oxide film

5.97

Photoconversion efficiency

5.76

Solution processed

5.75

Electron pathway

5.72

Functionalized graphene

5.52

Bulk heterojunction solar cell

5.49

Particulate film

5.46

Diketopyrrolopyrrole

5.46

Optics and Electronics (yellow cluster)

In most of the maps, this cluster occupied a central position, connected with the other clusters, a stem of sorts for the development of the NST network. Optics and Electronics provide foundations for chemical applications and for Biomedicine.

In the first period (2000–2003), Optics and Electronics appears closely linked in its upper sector to Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes and in its lower part to Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes.

The following period (2004–2007) shows how this cluster begins to gain strength and influence in the rest of the research lines, with great relevance for Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes.

From 2008 to 2010, Optics and Electronics is absorbed by the cluster Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes, forming a single cluster. This union is due to the application of bottom-up processes and chemicals within Optics and Electronics, for instance optic sensors. At the end of the second study period, in 2007, the application of optic sensors takes off, out of the laboratory and into applied science. After 2008, Optics and Electronics is seen to approach the clusters Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes and Biotechnology and Biomedicine (Biosensing and Therapy). In 2007, optic devices began to be used in biotechnology and medicine. At the same time, the nature of the material underwent development, first with inorganic and then with organic materials. For this reason, the term “quantum dot” disappears after 2008 and gives way to the entry of “graphene.”

The final period studied (2011–2013) continues to show a union of clusters Optics and Electronics and Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes and suggests that these areas are bound to develop in tandem or even mutual dependence, eventually becoming one area.

Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes (green cluster)

The cluster Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes appears closely tied to the cluster Optics and Electronics because in NST, the bottom-up materials are widely studied for optical applications. These are in turn used in sensors for biodetection and for the treatment of disease (Biomedicine).

Like the cluster Optics and Electronics, this one first involves inorganic materials but then progresses toward the almost exclusive use of organic materials by 2009.

From 2000 to 2003, this cluster is fused to the cluster Biotechnology and Biomedicine. However, from 2004 to 2007, they separate, giving rise to two distinctive neighboring clusters. It was in this period when the nucleus of optic sensors underwent development. In the period of 2008–2010, this cluster appears linked to Optics and Electronics. Meanwhile, one sees that this cluster begins to interact with the cluster Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes, and we begin to see terms indicating the real applications of the top-down nanomaterials (microfluid, microchip, microchannel). At the same time, biosensors begin to be applied, namely, in 2008. In 2009, biosensors were introduced in microfluid devices and there was an explosion of output in biomedicine; hence, a new line of research appears. During the final interval of study (2011–2013), we find a new cluster next to this one, representing work with organic materials (Organic electronics).

Biotechnology and Biomedicine (purple and orange clusters)

The cluster Biotechnology and Biomedicine is linked to Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes due to its use of this type of materials. It is also quite connected to Optics and Electronics because of optical measurements and to Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes because such devices are used as systems of detection.

In the first period of study, this cluster is joined to Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes, but in the period of 2004–2007, the two clusters divide into separate research lines. Then, in the following period, given the scientific advances in Optics and Electronics and the Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes, this cluster splits in two: Biosensing (purple cluster) and Therapeutic biomedicine (orange cluster). In more recent years (2011–2013), Biosensing has captured more research, possibly because it provides more direct benefits for society.

Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes (red cluster).

The cluster Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes begins as a line of research related purely with electronics, but later, it begins to incorporate microfluids, thus shifting nearer to the cluster of Biosensing.

In 2000–2003, this cluster was only near Optics and Electronics (upper left). In the following period studied, the cluster grew substantially in size and part of its research came to border on Biotechnology and Biomedicine and Physical and mechanical characteristics of materials.

In the final period of study (2011–2013), the left part of the cluster Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes approaches Biosensing, as the terms represented here frequently refer to microfluids, commonly used for biodetection. At the same time, this cluster becomes less compact, opening toward the right until it is situated parallel to the cluster Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes, thereby demonstrating its influence in the rest of the disciplines within NST.

Physical and mechanical characteristics of materials (blue and pink clusters)

The cluster Physical and mechanical characteristics of materials could be considered the first research line to be developed in the field of NST. The studies along this line are related with the principals of physics and the study of the mechanical properties or physical characterizations of certain materials in conjunction with NST discoveries. Once these materials were more familiar at the nanometric scale, the line of research slowed down, while other lines began to evolve thanks to the discoveries recently made. Hence, the lines are seen to intersect or interact to some degree. The tendency over the years is for the cluster Physical and mechanical characteristics of materials to move away from the rest, although it still shares limited activity with Optics and Electronics, Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes, and Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes. The interaction can be traced to the employment of materials common to all the clusters, yet the part dedicated to the study of mechanical properties of materials tends toward isolation.

During the period of 2000–2003, this cluster lies at a great distance from the other research lines. Another singular aspect of this cluster is its division into two lines. Namely, Physical characteristics of materials (pink cluster, top left) and Mechanical characteristics of materials (blue cluster, lower left). We also see a distance from the other research lines identified. Yet, in the following period (2004–2007), the two lines fuse into a single cluster and remain attached until the end of the period.

Organic electronics (light blue cluster).

This cluster only appears in the period of 2008–2010, owing to the use of organic materials within the realm of NST research. This causes it to occupy a position nearby the cluster Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes However, the line of research eventually disappears, absorbed into the cluster Microelectronic engineering and top-down processes during 2011–2013.

Conclusions

By means of CitnetExplorer, we have analyzed the intellectual structure of nanoscience and nanotechnology, identifying the seminal papers and key documents of all NST journals contained in the JCR Science Edition during the period 2000–2013.

In view of the influence that the most-cited works have exerted over the years studied, we conclude that seven groups can be discerned within the intellectual structure of NST. The articles making up these groupings are essential papers of reference for the development of the discipline, and they are recognized as such through citations by the community of scientists. The underlying structure visualized here shows that even a limited and recent time period serves to elaborate the genealogy of a field such as NST, as the scientific culture always leaves footprints behind—that is, new authors look to their predecessors for foundational knowledge (Bayer et al. 1990). Citation habits are strongly conditioned by the magnitude of scientific progress, as reflected by the articles by Iijima about carbon nanotubes, or the experiments of Novoselov and colleagues with graphene. Such crucial steps in the development of NST give rise to new subject areas that are eventually consolidated through an array of articles, either within or surrounding the intellectual sphere of Carbon nanomaterials.

Deserving mention as an outstanding example is the appearance of a thematic area related with Organic electronics, in this case attracting little attention among the scientific community, with only one article in the map cluster.

In our opinion, the structures identified and displayed in this work make manifest certain consolidated subject areas, stemming from works that report authentic scientific breakthroughs or key methodological proposals. There is evident consensus regarding the significance and usefulness of such contributions to NST.

Many of the documents identified in this study differ from those described by Kostoff et al. (2006a, 2007a), who took into account the citation of the documents of all scientific fields. Our work resorted to citation of the documents in the category NST of the WoS, meaning that we only accounted for citation by experts in the discipline. Visualization techniques and co-word analysis, in this case from titles and abstracts, allowed us to identify and project the evolution of the main research lines developed in NST from 2000 up to 2013.

The research lines traced are evidence of output exploring the behavior and phenomena at the nanoscale, together with the creation of new materials and their diverse applications. The profile of NST, accordingly, can be summed up as a young discipline in steady expansion, still needing some time to secure its foundations. This would explain why research lines such as Optics and Electronics, Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes, or Physical and mechanical characteristics of materials maintain a constant flow of output. In contrast, Biotechnology and Biomedicine and Microelectronics engineering and top-down processes undergo a bit of a boom, perhaps because there are greater health-related social benefits associated with these topics. It could also be that these lines will produce important economic benefits in the near future. New research lines arise with the applications of nanomaterials together with the trend of working with organic materials, as seen in the case of Organic electronics. However, no research line related with NST toxicology in biological or environmental contexts was detected. Many words related to this field— nanoparticle toxicity, nanotoxicity, ecotoxicity, and so on—are included in the clusters Biotechnology and Biomedicine: Biosensing and Therapeutic biomedicine. This line will no doubt emerge and gain strength in the coming years, with new developments to generate methods for the safe production, use, and elimination of nanomaterials (Nel et al. 2006).

When the number of documents published in a given research area is lower than in others, the number of citation is understandably low as well. Here, we could evoke the case of nanotoxicity. While some National Science Foundation (NSF) funded centers investigate the toxicity of nanomaterials (e.g., the Center for the Environmental Implication of Nanotechnology, Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology), overall, the production of scientific literature in this area that does not strictly correspond to Biotechnology and Biomedicine or Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes may be low because its scope of action is limited. It may also be that scientific production in this specific realm is not registered in the leading multidisciplinary database of WoS. We might therefore affirm that our work has not yet come to an end along this research line: one of the journals that our search strategy includes is Nanotoxicology, a specialized journal in this field. On the other hand, one journal is not enough to provide insightful clues into a field of knowledge. On a broader panorama, as the science maps show, all the terms associated with nanotoxicity appear inside the clusters Biotechnology and Biomedicine or Synthesis of nanomaterials and bottom-up processes, not as a separate research line.

The lack of scientific literature in the wake of certain research lines and the low citation rate harvested by them could explain why most seminal papers identified in this manuscript pertain to the field of technology development.

Both the intellectual and the cognitive structures identified illustrate how NST continues to occupy a largely interdisciplinary scientific area. Indeed, its development depends on the knowledge that comes from physics, chemistry, and materials science, as displayed by the science maps. This is no novelty, having been endorsed by previous analyses (Meyer and Persson 1998; Schummer 2004; Porter and Youtie 2009; Jo et al. 2016), which to some extent demonstrate the convergence and validity of the scientometric methodology used in this study. In short, however, the present endeavor strives to trace the research lines of NST and thereby show how research in the area has changed over time. It is our hope that this study will become a useful tool of reference for the NST scientific community, revealing at a glance essential research lines in the light of landmark papers. Additionally, the methodology used in this study can be implemented in any other scientific field so as to explore its intellectual and cognitive structure.

Limitations and future efforts

We must acknowledge specific problems inherent to map elaboration. Firstly, when working with a free and non-controlled language for the titles and abstracts of the documents studied, there are inevitable problems of synonymy, acronymy, and plural vs. singular denoting a single concept. Secondly, the non-use of controlled language may have led to an absence of keywords that could define a research line quite well but were not included in the titles or abstracts that we worked with. A potential solution for the future is to use keyword authors and index keywords to create science maps. This would necessarily entail using both controlled and non-controlled language, because the use of controlled language alone implies an absence of terms presently used in NST (Braam et al. 1991b).

Another limitation is related to the specific knowledge of the studied subject (NST) that will be covered in future works. No doubt consultation with experts in the scientific field would solve this limitation, since the opinion, review, and comments from them would allow us to guarantee the results, as well as reinforce, reorganize, reclassify, and deepen the thematic specialization, and therefore delimit in a clearer and more concise way the groups pertaining to the network and co-word maps.

Looking once again toward the future, we believe that the design of search strategies will be improved, embracing journals that cover all the research lines that NST touches upon and not merely the journal set ascribed under WoS. Furthermore, the methodology put forth here may be exported to study the category NST in other databases of a multidisciplinary character, where this category has been previously identified. It could also be extrapolated to other thematic fields. In addition, overlay techniques may be used in conjunction with the method. To a certain extent, the future of bibliometric techniques for scientific categorization and exploration may be foreseen through similar efforts.

Footnotes

  1. 1.

    This thesaurus was generated by a text editor, and then imported to VOSviewer. It contains approximately 2000 equivalencies and is available at http://www.ugr.es/local/benjamin/thesaurus-N&N.txt .

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the reviewers who have contributed significantly to improve the content of the original manuscript, Jean Sanders for translating/editing the manuscript, and Jorge F. Fernández Sánchez (associated professor at the University of Granada, Faculty of Science, Department of Analytical Chemistry) who helped as an expert in labeling the clusters to the science maps. Financial support from the Spanish National R&D Plan is also acknowledged.

Funding

This study was funded by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad of Spain through the State Programm of Research, Development and Innovation oriented to the Challenges of the Society [NANOMETRICS, CSO2014-57770-R)].

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alivisatos AP (1996) Semiconductor clusters, nanocrystals, and quantum dots. Science 271(5251):933–937. doi: 10.1126/science.271.5251.933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arencibia-Jorge R, Leydesdorff L, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Rousseau R, Paris SW (2009) Retrieval of very large numbers of items in the web of science: an exercise to develop accurate search strategies. Prof Inform 18(5):529–533. doi: 10.3145/epi.2009.sep.06 Google Scholar
  3. Arora SK, Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P (2013) Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: an updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs. Scientometrics 95(1):351–370. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0903-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arora SK, Youtie J, Carley S, Porter AL, Shapira P (2014) Measuring the development of a common scientific lexicon in nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 16(1):1–11. doi: 10.1007/s11051-013-2194-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asahi R, Morikawa T, Ohwaki T, Aoki K, Taga Y (2001) Visible-light photocatalysis in nitrogen-doped titanium oxides. Science 293(5528):269–271. doi: 10.1126/science.1061051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bajwa RS, Yaldram K (2012) Research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan scenario. J Nanopart Res 14(2):721. doi: 10.1007/s11051-016-3473-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barcikowski S, Devesa F, Moldenhauer K (2009) Impact and structure of literature on nanoparticle generation by laser ablation in liquids. J Nanopart Res 11(8):1883–1893. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9765-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baughman RH, Zakhidov AA, de Heer WA (2002) Carbon nanotubes—the route toward applications. Science 297(5582):787–792. doi: 10.1126/science.1060928 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bayer AE, Smart JC, McLaughlin GW (1990) Mapping intellectual structure of a scientific subfield through author cocitations. J Am Soc Inform Sci 41(6):444–452. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)41:6<444::AID-ASI12>3.0.CO;2-J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck JS, Vartuli JC, Roth WJ, Leonowicz ME, Kresge CT, Schmitt KD, Chu CTW, Olson DH, Sheppard EW, McCullen SB, Higgins JB, Schlenker JL (1992) A new family of mesoporous molecular sieves prepared with liquid crystal templates. J Am Chem Soc 114(27):10834–10843. doi: 10.1021/ja00053a020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becke AD (1993) Density-functional thermochemistry. III The role of exact exchange. J Chem Phys 98(7):5648–5652. doi: 10.1063/1.464913
  12. Bellardo T (1980) The use of co-citations to study science. Libr Res, 1980–1981 2(3):231–237Google Scholar
  13. Beumer K (2016) Broadening nanotechnology's impact on development. Nat Nanotech 11(5):398–400. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2016.71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Binnig G, Rohrer H (1983) Scanning tunneling microscopy. Surf Sci 126(1–3):236–244. doi: 10.1016/0039-6028(83)90716-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Blöchl PE (1994) Projector augmented-wave method. Phys Rev B 50(24):17953–17979. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.17953 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bohren CF, Huffman DR (1983) Absorption and scattering of light by small particles. John Wiley & Sons, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  17. Borgman C (1989) Bibliometrics and scholarly communication: editor's introduction. Commun Res 16(5):583–599. doi: 10.1177/009365089016005002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Börner K, Chen C, Boyack KW (2003) Visualizing knowledge domains. Annu Rev Inform Sci 37(1):179–255. doi: 10.1002/aris.1440370106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Boyack KW, Börner K, Klavans R (2009) Mapping the structure and evolution of chemistry research. Scientometrics 79(1):45–60. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0403-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boyack KW, Klavans R, Börner K (2005) Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics 64(3):351–374. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0255-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Braam RR, Moed HF, van Raan AFJ (1991a) Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis. I. Structural aspects. J Am Soc Inform Sci 42(4):233–245. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199105)42:4<233::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-I CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Braam RR, Moed HF, van Raan AFJ (1991b) Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis. II: dynamical aspects. J Am Soc Inform Sci 42(4):252–266. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199105)42:4<252::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-G CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Braun T, Schubert A, Zsindely S (1997) Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics 38(2):321–325. doi: 10.1007/BF02457417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bruchez M, Moronne M, Gin P, Weiss S, Alivisatos AP (1998) Semiconductor nanocrystals as fluorescent biological labels. Science 281(5385):2013–2016. doi: 10.1126/science.281.5385.2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Burda C, Chen X, Narayanan R, El-Sayed MA (2005) Chemistry and properties of nanocrystals of different shapes. Chem Rev 105(4):1025–1102. doi: 10.1021/cr030063a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cahlík T, Jiřina M (2006) Law of cumulative advantages in the evolution of scientific fields. Scientometrics 66(3):441–449. doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0032-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Callon M, Courtial J, Laville F (1991) Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics 22(1):155–205. doi: 10.1007/BF02019280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Callon M, Courtial JP, Turner WA, Bauin S (1983) From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis. Soc Sci Inform 22(2):191–235. doi: 10.1177/053901883022002003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Callon M, Law J, Rip A (eds) (1986) Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: sociology of science in the real world. Macmillan Press, London. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-07408-2 Google Scholar
  30. Cantos-Mateos G, Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Zulueta MA (2012) Stem cell research: bibliometric analysis of main research areas through KeyWords plus. ASLIB Proc 64(6):561–590. doi: 10.1108/00012531211281698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cantos-Mateos G, Zulueta-García MA, Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z (2014) Estudio evolutivo de la investigación española con células madre. Visualización e identificación de las principales líneas de investigación. Prof Inform 23(3):259–271. doi: 10.3145/epi.2014.may.06 Google Scholar
  32. Chan WC, Nie S (1998) Quantum dot bioconjugates for ultrasensitive nonisotopic detection. Science 281(5385):2016–2018. doi: 10.1126/science.281.5385.2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Chen C (1999) Visualizing semantic spaces and author co-citation networks in digital libraries. Inform Process Manag 35(3):401–420. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00068-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Chen H, Roco MC, Son J, Jiang S, Larson CA, Gao Q (2013) Global nanotechnology development from 1991 to 2012: patents, scientific publications, and effect of NSF funding. J Nanopart Res 15(9):1951. doi: 10.1007/s11051-013-1951-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Ocaña-Rosa K, Vargas-Quesada B (2016a) How to combine research guarantor and collaboration patterns to measure scientific performance of countries in scientific fields: nanoscience and nanotechnology as a case study. Front Res Metr Anal 1:2. doi: 10.3389/frma.2016.00002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Miguel, S, Perianes-Rodríguez A, Ovalle-Perandones A, Olmeda-Gómez C (2016b) Autonomy vs. dependency of scientific collaboration in scientific performance. 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, STI2016. Valencia, Spain, 14–16 Sept 2016Google Scholar
  37. Cui Y, Wei Q, Park H, Lieber CM (2001) Nanowire nanosensors for highly sensitive and selective detection of biological and chemical species. Science 293(5533):1289–1292. doi: 10.1126/science.1062711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Daniel MC, Astruc D (2004) Gold nanoparticles: assembly, supramolecular chemistry, quantum-size-related properties, and applications toward biology, catalysis, and nanotechnology. Chem Rev 104(1):293–346. doi: 10.1021/cr030698+ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Decher G (1997) Fuzzy nanoassemblies: toward layered polymeric multicomposites. Science 277(5330):1232–1237. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5330.1232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ding Y, Chowdhury GG, Foo S (2001) Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Inform Process Manag 37(6):817–842. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00051-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Egghe L, Rousseau R (1990) Introduction to Informetrics: quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Elsevier Science Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  42. Elsevier BV (2015) Scopus. www.scopus.com. Accessed 21 Jul 2015
  43. Feynman RP (1960) There’s plenty of room at the bottom. An invitation to enter a new field of physics. Eng Sci 23(5):22–36Google Scholar
  44. Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Montgomery JA, Vreven T, Kudin KN, Burant JC, Millam JM, Iyengar SS, Tomasi J, Barone V, Mennucci B, Cossi M, Scalmani G, Rega N, Petersson GA, Nakatsuji H, Hada M, Ehara M, Toyota K, Fukuda R, Hasegawa J, Ishida M, Nakajima T, Honda Y, Kitao O, Nakai H, Klene M, Li X, Knox JE, Hratchian HP, Cross JB, Bakken V, Adamo C, Jaramillo J, Gomperts R, Stratmann RE, Yazyev O, Austin AJ, Cammi R, Pomelli C, Ochterski JW, Ayala PY, Morokuma K, Voth GA, Salvador P, Dannenberg JJ, Zakrzewski VG, Dapprich S, Daniels AD, Strain MC, Farkas O, Malick DK, Rabuck AD, Raghavachari K, Foresman JB, Ortiz JV, Cui Q, Baboul AG, Clifford S, Cioslowski J, Stefanov BB, Liu G, Liashenko A, Piskorz P, Komaromi I, Martin RL, Fox DJ, Keith T, Al-Laham MA, Peng CY, Nanayakkara A, Challacombe M, Gill PMW, Johnson B, Chen W, Wong MW, Gonzalez C, Pople JA (2004) Gaussian 03, Revision C.02. Gaussian, Inc., WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Scalmani G, Barone V, Mennucci B, Petersson GA, Nakatsuji H, Caricato M, Li X, Hratchian HP, Izmaylov AF, Bloino J, Zheng G, Sonnenberg JL, Hada M, Ehara M, Toyota K, Fukuda R, Hasegawa J, Ishida M, Nakajima T, Honda Y, Kitao O, Nakai H, Vreven T, Montgomery JA, Peralta JE, Ogliaro F, Bearpark M, Heyd JJ, Brothers E, Kudin KN, Staroverov VN, Kobayashi R, Normand J, Raghavachari K, Rendell A, Burant JC, Iyengar SS, Tomasi J, Cossi M, Rega N, Millam JM, Klene M, Knox JE, Cross JB, Bakken V, Adamo C, Jaramillo J, Gomperts R, Stratmann RE, Yazyev O, Austin AJ, Cammi R, Pomelli C, Ochterski JW, Martin RL, Morokuma K, Zakrzewski VG, Voth GA, Salvador P, Dannenberg JJ, Dapprich S, Daniels AD, Farkas Ö, Foresman JB, Ortiz JV, Cioslowski J, Fox DJ (2009) Gaussian 09, Revision E.01. Gaussian, Inc., WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Fujishima A (1972) Electrochemical photolysis of water at a semiconductor electrode. Nature 238(5358):37–38. doi: 10.1038/238037a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Garfield E (1972) Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178(4060):471–479. doi: 10.1126/science.178.4060.471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Garfield E (1979) Citation indexing its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Garfield E (ed) (1980) SCI journal citation reports: a bibliometric analysis of science journals in the ISI data base, Science Citation Index 1979 Annual, 14. Institute for Scientific Information, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  50. Garfield E (2004) Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains literature. J Inf Sci 30(2):119–145. doi: 10.1177/0165551504042802 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Garfield E (2009) From the science of science to scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. J Informetr 3(3):173–179. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Garfield E, Pudovkin AI, Istomin VS (2003) Why do we need algorithmic historiography? J Am Soc Inf Tec 54(5):400–412. doi: 10.1002/asi.10226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Grätzel M (2001) Photoelectrochemical cells. Nature 414(6861):338–344. doi: 10.1038/35104607 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Grieneisen ML (2010) The proliferation of nano journals. Nat Nanotechnol 5(12):825–825. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2010.216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Grieneisen M, Zhang M (2011) Nanoscience and nanotechnology: evolving definitions and growing footprint on the scientific landscape. Small 7(20):2836–2839. doi: 10.1002/smll.201100387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Guan J, Liu N (2014) Measuring scientific research in emerging nano-energy field. J Nanopart Res 16(4):2356. doi: 10.1007/s11051-014-2356-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. He Q (1999) Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Libr Trends 48(1):133–159Google Scholar
  58. Hicks D (1987) Limitations of co-citation analysis as a tool for science policy. Soc Stud Sci 17(2):295–316. doi: 10.1177/030631287017002004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hoffmann MR, Martin ST, Choi W, Bahnemann DW (1995) Environmental applications of semiconductor photocatalysis. Chem Rev 95(1):69–96. doi: 10.1021/cr00033a004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hu G, Liu W (2015) Nano/micro-electro mechanical systems: a patent view. J Nanopart Res 17(12):465. doi: 10.1007/s11051-015-3273-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Huang MH, Mao S, Feick H, Yan H, Wu Y, Kind H, Weber E, Russo R, Yang P (2001) Room-temperature ultraviolet nanowire nanolasers. Science 292(5523):1897–1899. doi: 10.1126/science.1060367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Huang Z, Chen H, Li X, Roco MC (2006) Connecting NSF funding to patent innovation in nanotechnology (2001–2004). J Nanopart Res 8(6):859–879. doi: 10.1007/s11051-006-9147-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Huang C, Notten A, Rasters N (2011) Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and research strategies. J Technol Transfer 36(2):145–172. doi: 10.1007/s10961-009-9149-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hummers WS, Offeman RE (1958) Preparation of graphitic oxide. J Am Chem Soc 80(6):1339–1339. doi: 10.1021/ja01539a017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Huynh WU, Dittmer JJ, Alivisatos AP (2002) Hybrid nanorod-polymer solar cells. Science 295(5564):2425–2427. doi: 10.1126/science.1069156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Iijima S (1991) Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature 354(6348):56–58. doi: 10.1038/354056a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Invernizzi N, Foladori G, Robles-Belmont E, Lau EZ, Figueroa EA, Bagattolli C, Carrozza TJ, Chiancone A, Urquijo W (2015) Nanotechnology for social needs: contributions from Latin American research in the areas of health, energy and water. J Nanopart Res 17(5):233. doi: 10.1007/s11051-015-3037-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Jafari M, Zarghami HR (2016) Measuring nanotechnology development through the study of the dividing pattern between developed and developing countries during 2000–2014. J Nanopart Res 18(7):180. doi: 10.1007/s11051-016-3431-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Jo H, Park Y, Kim SE, Lee H (2016) Exploring the intellectual structure of nanoscience and nanotechnology: journal citation network analysis. J Nanopart Res 18:167. doi: 10.1007/s11051-016-3473-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Johnson PB, Christy RW (1972) Optical constants of the noble metals. Phys Rev B 6(12):4370–4379. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.6.4370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kelly KL, Coronado E, Zhao LL, Schatz GC (2003) The optical properties of metal nanoparticles: the influence of size, shape, and dielectric environment. J Phys Chem B 107(3):668–677. doi: 10.1021/jp026731y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kohn W, Sham LJ (1965) Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects. Phys Rev 140(4A):A1133–A1138. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.140.A1133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kong J, Franklin NR, Zhou C, Chapline MG, Peng S, Cho K, Dai H (2000) Nanotube molecular wires as chemical sensors. Science 287(5453):622–625. doi: 10.1126/science.287.5453.622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Kostoff RN, Shlesinger MF (2005) CAB: citation-assisted-background. Scientometrics 62(2):199–212. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0014-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kostoff RN, Murday JS, Lau CGY, Tolles WM (2006a) The seminal literature of nanotechnology research. J Nanopart Res 8(2):193–213. doi: 10.1007/s11051-005-9034-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Kostoff RN, Stump JA, Johnson D, Murday JS, Lau CGY, Tolles WM (2006b) The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. J Nanopart Res 8(3):301–321. doi: 10.1007/s11051-005-9035-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kostoff RN, Koytcheff RG, Lau CGY (2007a) Technical structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology literature. J Nanopart Res 9(5):701–724. doi: 10.1007/s11051-007-9224-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Kostoff RN, Koytcheff RG, Lau CGY (2007b) Structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology research literature. DTIC Technical Report Number ADA461930, Defense Technical Information Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, http://www.dtic.mil/
  79. Kostoff RN, Barth RB, Lau CGY (2008) Quality vs. quantity of publications in nanotechnology field from the People’s Republic of China. Chinese Sci Bull 53(8):1272–1280. doi: 10.1007/s11434-008-0183-y Google Scholar
  80. Kreibig U, Vollmer M (1995) Optical properties of metal clusters. Springer, New York. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-09109-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kresge CT, Leonowicz ME, Roth WJ, Vartuli JC, Beck JS (1992) Ordered mesoporous molecular sieves synthesized by a liquid-crystal template mechanism. Nature 359(6397):710–712. doi: 10.1038/359710a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kresse G, Furthmüller J (1996a) Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. Phys Rev B 54(16):11169–11186. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Kresse G, Furthmüller J (1996b) Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set. Comp Mater Sci 6(1):15–50. doi: 10.1016/0927-0256(96)00008-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Kresse G, Hafner J (1993) Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals. Phys Rev B 47(1):558–561. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.47.558 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kresse G, Hafner J (1994) Ab initio molecular-dynamics simulation of the liquid-metal–amorphous-semiconductor transition in germanium. Phys Rev B 49(20):14251–14269. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.49.14251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kresse G, Joubert D (1999) From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method. Phys Rev B 59(3):1758–1775. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lau EZ, Frederick S, Foladori G (2014) Twelve years of nanoscience and nanotechnology publications in Mexico. J Nanopart Res 16(1):2193. doi: 10.1007/s11051-013-2193-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lavrik OL, Busygina TV, Shaburova NN, Zibareva IV (2015) Nanoscience and nanotechnology in the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences: bibliometric analysis and evaluation. J Nanopart Res 17(2):90. doi: 10.1007/s11051-015-2900-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Law M, Greene LE, Johnson JC, Saykally R, Yang P (2005) Nanowire dye-sensitized solar cells. Nat Mater 4(6):455–459. doi: 10.1038/nmat1387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lawani SM (1980) Quality, collaboration, and citations in cancer research: a bibliometric study. PhD thesis, Florida State University, TallahasseeGoogle Scholar
  91. Lawani SM (1981) Bibliometrics: its theoretical foundations, methods and applications. Libri 31(1):294–315. doi: 10.1515/libr.1981.31.1.294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lee WH (2008) How to identify emerging research fields using scientometrics: an example in the field of information security. Scientometrics 76(3):503–525. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1898-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Lee C, Yang W, Parr RG (1988) Development of the Colle-Salvetti correlation-energy formula into a functional of the electron density. Phys Rev B 37(2):785–789. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.37.785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Leitch ME, Casman E, Lowry GVJ (2012) Nanotechnology patenting trends through an environmental lens: analysis of materials and applications. J Nanopart Res 14:1283. doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-1283-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Leydesdorff L (1987) Various methods for the mapping of science. Scientometrics 11(5–6):295–324. doi: 10.1007/BF02279351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Leydesdorff L (1989) The relations between qualitative theory and scientometric methods in science and technology studies. Scientometrics 15(5–6):333–347. doi: 10.1007/BF02017058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Leydesdorff L, Rafols I (2009) A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 60(2):348–362. doi: 10.1002/asi.20967 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Leydesdorff L, Rafols I (2011) Local emergence and global diffusion of research technologies: an exploration of patterns of network formation. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 62(5):846–860. doi: 10.1002/asi.21509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Leydesdorff L, Moya-Anegón F, Guerrero-Bote VP (2010) Journal maps on the basis of Scopus data: a comparison with the journal citation reports of the ISI. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 61(2):352–369. doi: 10.1002/asi.21250 Google Scholar
  100. Leydesdorff L, Moya-Anegón F, Guerrero-Bote VP (2015) Journal maps, interactive overlays, and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of Scopus data (1996–2012). J Assoc Inf Sci Tec 66(5):1001–1016. doi: 10.1002/asi.23243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Li G, Shrotriya V, Huang J, Yao Y, Moriarty T, Emery K, Yang Y (2005) High-efficiency solution processable polymer photovoltaic cells by self-organization of polymer blends. Nat Mater 4(11):864–868. doi: 10.1038/nmat1500 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Li X, Chen H, Huang Z, Roco MC (2007) Patent citation network in nanotechnology (1976–2004). J Nanopart Res 9(3):337–352. doi: 10.1007/s11051-006-9194-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Liu X, Zhang P, Li X, Chen H, Dang Y, Larson C, Roco MC, Wang X (2009) Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia, and India. J Nanopart Res 11(8):1845–1866. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9698-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Liu XJ, Zhang LA, Hong S (2011) Global biodiversity research during 1900–2009: a bibliometric analysis. Biodivers Conserv 20(4):807–826. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9981-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. López Cadenas MS, Hasmy A, Vessuri H (2011) Nanoscience and nanotechnology in Venezuela. J Nanopart Res 13(8):3101–3106. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0434-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Love JC, Estroff LA, Kriebel JK, Nuzzo RG, Whitesides GM (2005) Self-assembled monolayers of thiolates on metals as a form of nanotechnology. Chem Rev 105(4):1103–1170. doi: 10.1021/cr0300789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Medintz IL, Uyeda HT, Goldman ER, Mattoussi H (2005) Quantum dot bioconjugates for imaging, labelling and sensing. Nat Mater 4(6):435–446. doi: 10.1038/nmat1390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Menéndez-Manjón A, Moldenhauer K, Wagener P, Barcikowski S (2011) Nano-energy research trends: bibliometrical analysis of nanotechnology research in the energy sector. J Nanopart Res 13(9):3911–3922. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0344-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Meyer M, Persson O (1998) Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics 42(2):195–205. doi: 10.1007/BF02458355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Michalet X, Pinaud FF, Bentolila LA, Tsay JM, Doose S, Li JJ, Sundaresan G, Wu AM, Gambhir SS, Weiss S (2005) Quantum dots for live cells, in vivo imaging, and diagnostics. Science 307(5709):538–544. doi: 10.1126/science.1104274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Milojević S (2012) Multidisciplinary cognitive content of nanoscience and nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 14(1):685. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0685-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Morales AM, Lieber CM (1998) A laser ablation method for the synthesis of crystalline semiconductor nanowires. Science 279(5348):208–211. doi: 10.1126/science.279.5348.208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Moya-Anegón F, Vargas-Quesada B, Herrero-Solana V, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Corera-Álvarez E, Muñoz-Fernández FJ (2004) A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories. Scientometrics 61(1):129–145. doi: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000037368.31217.34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Moya-Anegón F, Vargas-Quesada B, Corera-Álvarez E, Muñoz-Fernández FJ, Herrero-Solana V, González-Molina A, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z (2006) Visualización y análisis de la estructura científica española: ISI Web of Science 1990–2005. Prof Inform 15(4):258–269. doi: 10.3145/epi.2006.jul.03
  115. Moya-Anegón F, Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Corera-Álvarez E, Muñoz-Fernández FJ, Herrero-Solana V (2007) Visualizing the marrow of science. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 58(14):2167–2179. doi: 10.1002/asi.20683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Munoz-Sandoval E (2014) Trends in nanoscience, nanotechnology, and carbon nanotubes: a bibliometric approach. J Nanopart Res 16(1):1–22. doi: 10.1007/s11051-013-2152-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Murray C, Norris DJ, Bawendi MG (1993) Synthesis and characterization of nearly monodisperse CdE (E = sulfur, selenium, tellurium) semiconductor nanocrystallites. J Am Chem Soc 115(19):8706–8715. doi: 10.1021/ja00072a025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Narin F (1976) Evaluative bibliometrics: the use of publication and citation analysis in the evaluation of scientific activity. Contract report to the National Science Foundation. Computer Horizons, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  119. Neff MW, Corley EA (2009) 35 years and 160,000 articles: a bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology. Scientometrics 80(3):657–682. doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-2099-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311(5761):622–627. doi: 10.1126/science.1114397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Newman ME (2003) The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev 45(2):167–256. doi: 10.1137/S003614450342480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Novoselov KS, Geim AK, Morozov SV, Jiang D, Zhang Y, Dubonos SA, Grigorieva IV, Firsov AA (2004) Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Science 306(5696):666–669. doi: 10.1126/science.1102896 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Noyons EC, Moed HF, Luwel M (1999) Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: a bibliometric study. J Assoc Inf Sci 50(2):115–131. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:2<115::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-J Google Scholar
  124. Onyancha OB, Ocholla DN (2005) An informetric investigation of the relatedness of opportunistic infections to HIV/AIDS. Inform Process Manag 41(6):1573–1588. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Oregan B, Grätzel M (1991) A low-cost, high-efficiency solar cell based on dye-sensitized. Nature 353:737–740. doi: 10.1038/353737a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Ostrowski AD, Martin T, Conti J, Hurt I, Harthorn BH (2009) Nanotoxicology: characterizing the scientific literature, 2000–2007. J Nanopart Res 11(2):251–257. doi: 10.1007/s11051-008-9579-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Pan ZW, Dai ZR, Wang ZL (2001) Nanobelts of semiconducting oxides. Science 291(5510):1947–1949. doi: 10.1126/science.1058120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Peng X, Manna L, Yang W, Wickham J, Scher E, Kadavanich A, Alivisatos AP (2000) Shape control of CdSe nanocrystals. Nature 404(6773):59–61. doi: 10.1038/35003535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Perdew JP, Burke K, Ernzerhof M (1996) Generalized gradient approximation made simple. Phys Rev Lett 77(18):3865. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Peters HPF, van Raan AF (1993) Co-word-based science maps of chemical engineering. Part I: representations by direct multidimensional scaling. Res Policy 22(1):23–45. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(93)90031-C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Porter AL, Youtie J (2009) How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? J Nanopart Res 11(5):1023–1041. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9607-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck D (2008) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10(5):715–728. doi: 10.1007/s11051-007-9266-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Potter WG (1988) Of making many books there is no end: bibliometrics and libraries. J Acad Librariansh 14(4):238a–238cGoogle Scholar
  134. Qin X, Wang Z, Zhao H, Kaspersen LB (2016) The focus and frontier of corporate social responsibility: a co-word analysis of articles in SSCI, 2001-2014. Nankai Bus Rev Int 7(2):130–149. doi: 10.1108/NBRI-09-2015-0021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Rafols I, Porter AL, Leydesdorff L (2010) Science overlay maps: a new tool for research policy and library management. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 61(9):1871–1887. doi: 10.1002/asi.21368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Sandison A (1989) Documentation note: thinking about citation analysis. J Doc 145(1):59–64. doi: 10.1108/eb026839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Schummer J (2004) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinary, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59(3):425–465. doi: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018542.71314.38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Seaton A, Donaldson K (2005) Nanoscience, nanotoxicology, and the need to think small. Lancet 365(9463):923–924. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71061-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Small H (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inform Sci 24(4):265–269. doi: 10.1002/asi.4630240406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Small H (1999) Visualizing science by citation mapping. J Assoc Inf Sci Tec 50(9):799–813. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:9<799::AID-ASI9>3.0.CO;2-G Google Scholar
  141. Small H, Griffith BC (1974) The structure of scientific literatures I: identifying and graphing specialties. Sci Stud 4(1):17–40. doi: 10.1177/030631277400400102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Small H, Sweeney E (1985) Clustering the science citation index® using co-citations. I: a comparison of methods. Scientometrics 7(3–6):391–409. doi: 10.1007/BF02017157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Small H, Sweeney E, Greenlee E (1985) Clustering the science citation index using co-citations. II: mapping science. Scientometrics 8(5–6):321–340. doi: 10.1007/BF02018057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Soler JM, Artacho E, Gale JD, García A, Junquera J, Ordejón P, Sánchez-Portal D (2002) The SIESTA method for ab initio order-N materials simulation. J Phys-Condens Mat 14(11):2745–2779. doi: 10.1088/0953-8984/14/11/302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Soper ME, Osborne DL, Zweizig DL, Powell RR (1990) The librarian's thesaurus. American Library Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  146. Suominen A, Li Y, Youtie J, Shapira P (2016) A bibliometric analysis of the development of next generation active nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res 18(9):270. doi: 10.1007/s11051-016-3578-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Sze SM (1981) Physics of semiconductor devices, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  148. Tans SJ, Verschueren AR, Dekker C (1998) Room-temperature transistor based on a single carbon nanotube. Nature 393(6680):49–52. doi: 10.1038/29954 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Terekhov AI (2012) Evaluating the performance of Russia in the research in nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 14(11):1250. doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-1250-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Terekhov AI (2015) R & D on carbon nanostructures in Russia: scientometric analysis, 1990–2011. J Nanopart Res 17(2):81. doi: 10.1007/s11051-015-2897-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Thomson Corporation (2015a) Journal Citation Report Science Edition 2014. https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com. Accessed 15 April 2015
  152. Thomson Corporation (2015b) Web of Science. http://webofknowledge.com. Accessed 21 July 2015
  153. Tijseen RJW, De Leeuw J, Van Raan AFJ (1987) Quasi-correspondence analysis on scientometric transaction matrices. Scientometrics 11(5–6):351–366. doi: 10.1007/BF02279354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Tomajko KG, Drake MA (1985) The journal, scholarly communication, and the future. Ser Librarian 10(1–2):289–298. doi: 10.1300/J123v10n01_30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Troullier N, Martins JL (1991) Efficient pseudopotentials for plane-wave calculations. Phys Rev B 43(3):1993–2006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.43.1993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Van Den Besselaar P, Heimeriks G (2006) Mapping research topics using word-reference co-occurrences: a method and an exploratory case study. Scientometrics 68(3):377–393. doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0118-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84(2):523–538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2014a) CitNetExplorer: a new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks. J Informetr 8(4):802–823. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2014b) CitnetExplorer [computer software]. Version 1.0.0. http://www.citnetexplorer.nl. Accessed 15 Jul 2015
  160. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L, Dekker R, van den Berg J (2010) A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: multidimensional scaling and VOS. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 61(12):2405–2416. doi: 10.1002/asi.21421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. (2015) VOSviewer [computer software]. Version 1.6.3. http://www.vosviewer.com. Accessed 10 Sept 2015
  162. Van Raan AFJ, Tijseen RJW (1993) The neural net of neural network research: an exercise in bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 26(1):169–192. doi: 10.1007/BF02016799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Vargas-Quesada B, Moya-Anegón F, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, González-Molina A (2010) Showing the essential science structure of a scientific domain and its evolution. Inf Vis 9(4):288–300. doi: 10.1057/ivs.2009.33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Wagner RS, Ellis WC (1964) Vapor-liquid-solid mechanism of single crystal growth (new method growth catalysis from impurity whisker epitaxial + large crystals Si E). Appl Phys Lett 4(5):89–90. doi: 10.1063/1.1753975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Wang ZL, Song J (2006) Piezoelectric nanogenerators based on zinc oxide nanowire arrays. Science 312(5771):242–246. doi: 10.1126/science.1124005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. White HD (2003) Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: a remapping of paradigmatic information scientists. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 54(5):423–434. doi: 10.1002/asi.10228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Wood S, Jones R, Geldart A (2003) The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Economic and Social Research Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  168. Xia Y, Yang P, Sun Y, Wu Y, Mayers B, Gates B, Yin Y, Kim F, Yan H (2003) One-dimensional nanostructures: synthesis, characterization, and applications. Adv Mater 15(5):353–389. doi: 10.1002/adma.200390087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Yu WW, Qu L, Guo W, Peng X (2003) Experimental determination of the extinction coefficient of CdTe, CdSe, and CdS nanocrystals. Chem Mater 15(14):2854–2860. doi: 10.1021/cm034081k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Zhao D, Feng J, Huo Q, Melosh N, Fredrickson GH, Chmelka BF, Stucky GD (1998) Triblock copolymer syntheses of mesoporous silica with periodic 50 to 300 angstrom pores. Science 279(5350):548–552. doi: 10.1126/science.279.5350.548 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information and Communication, Faculty of Communication and Documentation, SCImago Research GroupUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.CSIC, Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP), SCImago Research GroupMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations