Profiling leading scientists in nanobiomedical science: Interdisciplinarity and potential leading indicators of research directions

R and D Management

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 288-306

  Pei, Ruimin ^b,c   Porter, Alan L ^a,b  

^a Search Technology Inc   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79956328833     PISSN: 00336807     EISSN: 14679310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00643.x     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A. and Di Costa, F. (2009) Research collaboration and productivity: is there correlation? Higher Education, 57, 155-171.
2. Adams, J, Jackson, L. and Marshall, S (2007). Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research: Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
3. Bensman, S.J. and Leydesdorff, L. (2009) Definition and identification of journals as bibliographic and subject entities: librarianship versus ISI journal citation reports methods and their effect on citation measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 1097-1117.
4. Borner, K., Chen, C.M. and Boyack, K.W. (2003) Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 179-255.
5. Boyack, K.W. (2004) Mapping knowledge domains: characterizing PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5192-5199.
6. Boyack, K.W., Borner, K. and Klavans, R. (2009) Mapping the structure and evolution of chemistry research. Scientometrics, 79, 45-60.
7. Boyack, K.W., Klavans, R. and Borner, K. (2005) Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64, 351-374.
8. Braun, T., Schubert, A. and Zsindely, S. (1997) Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38, 321-325.
9. Buel, W.D., Albright, L.E. and Glennon, J.R. (1966) A note on generality and cross-validity of personal history for identifying creative research scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 217-219.
10. Burt, R.S. (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. London: Harvard University Press.
11. Burt, R.S. (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. The American Journal of Sociology, 110, 349-399.
12. Calero, C., Buter, R., Valdes, C.C. and Noyons, E. (2006) How to identify research groups using publication analysis: an example in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 66, 365-376.
13. Chen, C.M. (2006) CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 359-377.
14. Chen, C.M., McCain, K., Boyack, K.W., Lin, X. and Morris, S.A. (2002) Mapping the knowledge. In: Toms, E.G. (ed.), Asist 2002: Proceedings of the 65th Asist Annual Meeting, Vol. 39, 2002. Medford: Information Today Inc., pp. 511-512.
15. Chiu, W.T. and Ho, Y.S. (2007) Bibliometric analysis of tsunami research. Scientometrics, 73, 3-17.
16. Christodoulos, C., Michalakelis, C. and Varoutas, D. (2010) Forecasting with limited data: combining ARIMA and diffusion models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 558-565.
17. de Bellis, N. (2009) Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.
18. Ernest, H. and Shetty, R. (2005) Impact of nanotechnology on biomedical sciences: review of current concepts on convergence of nanotechnology with biology. Journal of Nanotechnology Online.
19. ESF. (2005) ESF Forward Look on Nanomedicine. Le Bischenberg, European Medical Research Councils (EMRC), Strasbourg, France.
20. Ganguly, I., Koebel, C.T. and Cantrell, R.A. (2010) A categorical modeling approach to analyzing new product adoption and usage in the context of the building-materials industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 662-677.
21. Glänzel, W. and Schubert, A. (2004) Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In: Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W. and Schmoch, U. (eds), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Dordrecht: Boston Kluwer Academic Publishers.
22. Grodal, S. and Thoma, G. (2008). Cross-pollination in science and technology: Concept mobility in the nanobiotechnology field. NBER Conference on Emerging Industries: Nanotechnology and NanoIndicators, Cambridge, MA, USA.
23. Guan, J. and Wang, G. (2010) A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China's inventor-authors and their non-inventing peers. Scientometrics, 84, 331-343.
24. Heinze, T. and Bauer, G. (2007) Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective. Scientometrics, 70, 811-830.
25. Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Senker, J. and Kuhlmann, S. (2007) Identifying creative research accomplishments: methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics. Scientometrics, 70, 125-152.
26. Hullmann, A. (2006) The economic development of nanotechnology - an indicators based analysis. Nano S&T - Convergent Science and Technologies, a report from the European Commission, DG Research, Version 28.
27. Hullmann, A. (2007) Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 70, 739-758.
28. Hullmann, A. and Meyer, M. (2003) Publications and patents in nanotechnology - an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58, 507-527.
29. Kay, L. and Shapira, P. (2009) Developing nanotechnology in Latin America. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 259-278.
30. Klavans, R. and Boyack, K.W. (2008) Thought leadership: a new indicator for national and institutional comparison. Scientometrics, 75, 239-250.
31. Klavans, R. and Boyack, K.W. (2009) Toward a consensus map of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 455-476.
32. Larivière, V. and Gingras, Y. (2010) On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 126-131.
33. Lee, S. and Bozeman, B. (2005) The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673-702.
34. Levitt, J.M. and Thelwall, M. (2008) Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1973-1984.
35. Levitt, J.M. and Thelwall, M. (2009) The most highly cited Library and information science articles: interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patterns. Scientometrics, 78, 45-67.
36. Leydesdorff, L. and Rafols, I. (2009) A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 348-362.
37. Li, L.L., Ding, G.H., Feng, N., Wang, M.H. and Ho, Y.S. (2009) Global stem cell research trend: Bibliometric analysis as a tool for mapping of trends from 1991 to 2006. Scientometrics, 80, 39-58.
38. Liu, X., Zhang, P.Z., Li, X., Chen, H.C., Dang, Y., Larson, C., Roco, M.C. and Wang, X.W. (2009) Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia, and India. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 1845-1866.
39. McGrath, W.E. (1996) The unit of analysis (objects of study) in bibliometrics and scientometrics. Scientometrics, 35, 257-264.
40. Meyer, M. (2006) Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Scientometrics, 68, 545-560.
41. Meyer, M., Makar, I., Rafols, I., Olsen, D., Wagner, V., Zweck, A., Porter, A.L. and Youtie, J. (2008). Euronano: nanotechnology in Europe: assessment of the current state, opportunities, challenges and socio-economic impact, ETEPS.
42. Meyer, M. and Persson, O. (1998) Nanotechnology - interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42, 195-205.
43. Meyer, M., Persson, O. and Power, Y. (2001) Nanotechnology Expert Group and Eurotech Data, Mapping Excellence in Nanotechnologies, a report from the European Commission.
44. Michalakelis, C., Varoutas, D. and Sphicopoulos, T. (2010) Innovation diffusion with generation substitution effects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 541-557.
45. Pei, R.M., Youtie, J. and Porter, A.L. (in press) Nano-biomedical science in China: growth and challenges. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24 (in press).
46. Porter, A.L., Cohen, A.S., Roessner, J.D. and Perreault, M. (2007) Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72, 117-147.
47. Porter, A.L., Kay, L., Carley, S. and Rafols, I. (2009) "How to" Overview (Internal Georgia Tech document on request from Alan Porter).
48. Porter, A.L., Kongthon, A. and Lui, J.C. (2002) Research profiling: improving the literature review. Scientometrics, 53, 351-370.
49. Porter, A.L. and Rafols, I. (2009) Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81, 719-745.
50. Porter, A.L., Roessner, J.D. and Heberger, A.E. (2008a) How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research Evaluation, 17, 273-282.
51. Porter, A.L. and Youtie, J. (2009) Where does nanotechnology belong in the map of science? Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 534-536.
52. Porter, A.L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P. and Schoeneck, D.J. (2008b) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 715-728.
53. Price, D.J.D. (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510-515.
54. Pudovkin, A.I. and Garfield, E. (2002) Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 1113-1119.
55. Rafols, I. and Leydesdorff, L. (2009) Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 1823-1835.
56. Rafols, I. and Meyer, M. (2007) How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70, 633-650.
57. Rafols, I. and Meyer, M. (2010) Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82, 263-287.
58. Rafols, I., Porter, A.L. and Leydesdorff, L. (2010) Science overlay maps: a new tool for research policy and library management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 1871-1887.
59. Rinia, E.J., van Leeuwen, T.N., van Vuren, H.G. and van Raan, A.F.J. (2001) Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research. Research Policy, 30, 357-361.
60. Roco, M.C. (2003) Converging science and technology at the nanoscale: opportunities for education and training. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 1247-1249.
61. Sastry, R.K., Rashmi, H.B., Rao, N.H. and Ilyas, S.M. (2010) Integrating nanotechnology into agri-food systems research in India: a conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 639-648.
62. Schummer, J. (2004) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59, 425-465.
63. Scott, J. (2000) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London: Sage.
64. Seale, C., Ziebland, S. and Charteris-Black, J. (2006) Gender, cancer experience and internet use: a comparative keyword analysis of interviews and online cancer support groups. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 2577-2590.
65. Simonton, D.K. (1999) Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
66. Simonton, D.K. (2004) Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67. Sternberg, R.J. (2003) Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68. Stirling, A. (2007) A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4, 707-719.
69. Sutter, M. and Kocher, M. (2004) Patterns of co-authorship among economics departments in the USA. Applied Economics, 36, 327-333.
70. The National Academies. (2005) Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
71. Tomellini, R., Faure, U. and Panzer, O. (2005) European Technology Platform on NanoMedicine: Nanotechnology for Health, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: European Commission, Belgium.
72. Yegros-Yegors, A., Amat, C.B., d'Este, P., Porter, A.L. and Rafols, I. (2010) Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher scientific impact? Science and Technology Indicators (STI) Conference, Leiden, the Netherlands.
73. Yi, H. and Xi, Z. (2008) Trends of DDT research during the period of 1991 to 2005. Scientometrics, 75, 111-122.
74. Zhou, W. (2003) Ethics of nanobiotechnology at the frontline. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 19, 481-489.