The structure and comparative advantages of China’s scientific research: quantitative and qualitative perspectives
- 1.3k Downloads
In recent decades China has witnessed an impressive improvement in science and its scientific output has become the second largest in the world. From both quantitative and qualitative perspectives, this paper aims to explore China’s comparative advantages in different academic disciplines. This paper employs two datasets: publications in all journals and publications in the top 5 % journals by discipline. With the former database we investigate the comparative advantages of each academic discipline in terms of absolute output volume, and with the latter database we evaluate the scientific output published in prestigious resources. Different from the criticism stated in previous literature, this paper finds that the quality of China’s research (represented by papers published in high-impact journals) is promising. Since 2006 the growth of scientific publications in China has been driven by papers published in English-language journals. The increasing visibility of Chinese science seems to be paving the way for its wider recognition and higher citation rates.
KeywordsRevealed comparative advantage Publications Scientific output Publication quality High-impact journals
JEL ClassificationO31 O32 O33 O57
The author of this study is grateful to the valuable comments from Richard Deiss (policy officer in DG Research and Innovation), members of the consortium and the anonymous referees.
- Conroy, M., Dusansky, R., Drukker, D., & Kildegaard, A. (1995). The productivity of economics departments in the U.S.: Publications in the core journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 33, 1966–1971.Google Scholar
- Garfield, E. (2003). The meaning of the impact factor. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 3, 363–369.Google Scholar
- Jin, B., & Rousseau, R. (2004). Evaluation of research performance and scientometric indicators in China. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (pp. 497–514). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Nature Publishing Group. (2015). Nature journals offer double-blind review. Nature, 518, 274.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2008). OECD reviews of innovation policy: China. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 42–46.Google Scholar
- The State Council of the People’s Republic of China (SC-PRC). (2006). The National Medium- and Long-Term Programme for Science and Technology Development (2006–2020). http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2006-02/09/content_183787.htm (in Chinese)
- Wang, L., Meijers, H., & Szirmai, A. (2013b). Technological spillovers and industrial growth in Chinese regions. UNU-MERIT Working Papers 2014-044.Google Scholar