, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 5–33

Interdisciplinary information input and output of a nano-technology project

  • Hajime Eto


The input and output information of a national project of Japan for nano-technology will be analysed. In 1996 Japanese government stipulated a guideline to evaluate national technology projects on economic criteria as well as technological ones. In addition to the criteria intrinsic to economy but extrinsic to technology and unfriendly to technologists, however, another view more intrinsic to technology may be useful as well. This study will attempt to complement the governmentally stipulated evaluation method with a bibliometric one. Considering the interdisciplinary approach as a merit of national projects, this study will analyse how interdisciplinary information was used as input and was published as output by the project. Focussing on the publication behaviours of the project, information flow from technology to science or a development pattern of science pulled by technology will be discussed. Finally, the matching of the evaluation criteria to technology development and the friendliness of evaluation methods to technologists will be discussed.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. C. ADUCKIA, J. GOMEZ, Y. J. GOMEZ, Bibliometric output from Colombian researchers with approved projects by COLCIENCIAS between 1983 and 1994. Scientometrics, 48 (2000) 3-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. J. ARROW, The economic learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 29 (1962) 155-173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. M. BATOR, The anatomy of market failure. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 72 (1958) 351-379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. E. BIRD, Authorship patterns in marine mammal science. Scientometrics, 39 (1997) 99-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. J. BOUMOL, T. FABIAN, Decomposition, pricing for decentralization and external economies. Management Science, 11 (1964) 1-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. BRAUN, A. SCHUBERT, S. ZSINDELY, Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38 (1997) 321-325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. C. BROOKES. Bradford's law and the bibliography of science. Nature, 244 (1969) 953-956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. J. CUNNINGHAM, S. M. DILLON, Authorship patterns in information systems. Scientometrics, 39 (1997) 19-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. ETO, Prudence of science and technology policies: A historical review. In: H. ETO (Ed), R&D Strategies in Japan – The National, Regional and Corporate Approach, Chapter 11, pp. 225-296, Elsevier, Amsterdam. 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. ETO, Rising tail in Bradford distribution: Its interpretation and application. Scientometrics, 13 (1988) 263-279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. ETO, Authorship and citation patterns in operational research journals in relation to competition and reform. Scientometrics, 47 (2000) 25-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. ETO, Bibliometric distance between methodology and application in statistics. Scientometrics, 48 (2000) 85-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. ETO, Authorship and citation patterns in Management Science in comparison with operationaL research. Scientometrics, 53 (2002) 337-340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. ETO, The suitability of technology forecasting/foresight methods for decision systems and strategy. A Japanese view. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70 (2003) 231-249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. ETO, K. MAKINO. Stochastic model for innovation and resulting skew distribution for technological concentration with verification in Japanese industry. Scientometrics, 5 (1983) 219-243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. ETO, K. MAKINO, Theoretical and empirical analysis of differentiation process in technology gap between developed and developing nations. In: W. ISARD, Y. NAGAO (Eds), International and Regional Conflict: Analytical Approaches, Chapter 9, pp. 149-159, Ballinger Pub. Co., Cambridge, Mass. 1983.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. C. GARG, P. PADHI, A study of collaboration in laser science and laser technology. Scientometrics, 51 (2001) 415-427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. M. GUPTA, Analysis of distribution of the age of citation in theoretical population genetics. Scientometrics, 40 (1997) 139-162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. M. GUPTA, C. R. KARISIDDAPPA, Author productivity patterns in theoretical population genetics speciality. Scientometrics, 36 (1997) 59-68.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. M. GUPTA, C. R. KARISIDDAPPA, Collaboration in theoretical population genetics speciality. Scientometrics, 42 (1998) 349-376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    GYOSEI-KAIKAKU IINKAI (Committee for Administration Reform), Gyosei kanyo no arikata ni kansuru kijun (Standard for commitment of administration). 1996.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. DE HAAN, Authorship patterns in Dutch sociology. Scientometrics, 39 (1997) 197-208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. D. HAITUN, Stationary scientometric distributions, Part II. The non-Gaussian nature of scientific activities. Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 89-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. D. HAITUN, Stationary scientometric distributions, Part III. The role of Zipf distribution. Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 181-194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    KAWATETSU TECHNO-REESAEARCH KABUSHIKI KAISHA (Kawasaki Steel Techno-Research Corp.), Kenkyu-kaihatsu project no chiteki seika-butsu ni kakawaru teiryoteki hyoka shuho ni kansuru chosa (Study of quantitative evaluation methods concerning intellectual results of R&D projects). Tokyo. 2002.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. MEYER, Patent citations in a novel field of technology. What can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology? Scientometrics, 48 (2000) 151-178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. MEYER, Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29 (2000) 409-434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. MEYER. Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nano science and nano technology. Scientometrics, 51 (2001) 163-183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. MEYER, O. PERSSON. Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42 (1998) 195-205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    F. NARIN, D. OLIVASTRO, Linkage between patents and papers: An interim EPO/US comparison. Scientometrics, 41 (1998) 51-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    G. P. O. NEILL, Authorship patterns in theory based versus research based journals. Scientometrics, 41 (1998) 291-298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    P. PICHAPPAN, S. SARASVADY, The other side of the coin: The intricacies of author-selfcitations. Scientometrics, 54 ( 2002) 285-290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    D. J. DE SOLLA PRICE, Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press. 1963.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    E. J. RINIA, T. N. VAN LEEUWEN, E. E. W. BRUINS, H. G. VAN VUREN, A. F. J. VAN RAAN, Citation delays in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange. Scientometrics 51 (2001) 293-309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    R. ROUSSEAU, Temporal differences in self-citation rates of scientific journals. Scientometrics, 44 (1999) 521-531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    P. A. SAMUELSON, The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36 (1954) 387-390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    S. L. SANOGAM, Obsolescence of literature in the field of psychology. Scientometrics, 41 (1998) 33-46.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    U. SCHMOCH, Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 193-211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    U. SCHMOCH, Indicators and the relations between science and technology. Scientometrics, 38 (1997) 103-116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    R. TAGLIACOZZO, Self-citations in scientific literature. Journal of Documentation, 33 (1977) 251-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    B. VAN VIAENEN, H. MOED, A. VAN RAAN, An exploration of the science base of recent technology. Research Policy, 19 (1990) 61-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    A. VERBEEK, K. DEBACKERE, M. LUWEL, P. ANDRIES, E. ZIMMERMANN, F. DELEUS, Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes. Scientometrics, 54 (2002) 399-420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers/Akadémiai Kiadó 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hajime Eto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ManagementChiba Keizai UniversityTodoroki, Inage-ku, Chiba-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations