Bibliometry and nanotechnology: A meta-analysis

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 78, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1174-1182

  Motoyama, Yasuyuki ^a   Eisler, Matthew N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bibliometry; Citation; Country comparison; Impact factor; Metric; Nanotechnology

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRY; CITATION; COUNTRY COMPARISONS; IMPACT FACTOR; METRIC;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS; INVESTMENT; META-ANALYSIS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PRODUCTIVITY;

UNITED STATES;

INNOVATION; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

EID: 80051583980     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.013     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Godin B. On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics 2006, 68(1):109-133.
2. Godin B. The value of science: changing conceptions of scientific productivity 1869-circa 1970. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2009, 48:547-587.
3. Godin B. The Making of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2009, Centre-Urbanisation Culture Societe de I'Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Montreal.
4. Asner G.R. The linear model, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the golden age of industrial research. The Science-Industry Nexus 2004, Science history Publications, Sagamore Beach, MA. K. Grandin, N. Wormbs, S. Widmalm (Eds.).
5. Grupp H., Mogee M.E. Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?. Res. Policy 2004, 33:1373-1384.
6. NSB Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, National Science Board, Washington DC.
7. Roco M.C., Williams S., Alivisatos P. Nanotechnology Research Directions: IWGN Workshop Report - Vision for Nanotechnology Research and Development in the Next Decade 1999, WTEC, MD.
8. Greenberg D.S. Science, Money and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion 2001, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
9. Pierterse J.N. Innovate, innovate! Here comes American rebirth. Education in the Creative Economy 2010, Peter Lang, New York. D. Araya, M.A. Peters (Eds.).
10. OECD Science, Technology, and Industry Outlook 2010, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
11. NSB Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, National Science Board, Washington DC.
12. Macilwain C. What science is really worth. Nature 2010, 465:682-684.
13. Rohn J. How to improve the use of metrics. Nature 2010, 465:870-872.
14. Johnson A. The end of pure science: science policy from Bayh-Dole to the NNI. Discovering the Nanoscale 2004, IOS Press, Washington, DC. D. Baird, A. Nordmann, J. Schummer (Eds.).
15. Mody C. Introduction. Perspect. Sci. 2009, 17(2):111-122.
16. Gallo J. The discursive and operational foundations of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Perspect. Sci. 2009, 17(2):174-211.
17. WTEC R&D Status and Trends in Nanoparticles, Nanostructured Materials, and Nanodevices in the United States 1998, International Research Institute at Loyola College in Maryland, Baltimore.
18. WTEC Nanostructure Science and Technology: A Worldwide Study 1999, WTEC, Loyola College, Baltimore.
19. Siegel R.W., Hu E., Roco M.C. R&D Status and Trends in Nanoparticles, Nanostructured Materials, and Nanodevides in the U.S. 1998, International Technology Research Institute, Baltimore.
20. IWGN Nanostructure Science and Technology: A Worldwide Study 1999, Interagency Working Group on NanoScience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN), Washington DC.
21. McCray W.P. Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future. Hist. Technol. 2005, 21(2):177-203.
22. PCAST The Second Assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative 2008, President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Nanotechnology, Washington DC.
23. PCAST The Third Assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative 2010, President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Nanotechnology, Washington DC.
24. Kostoff R.N., Koytcheff R.G., Lau C.G.Y. Technical structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology literature. J. Nanopart. Res. 2007, 9:701-724.
25. Leydesdorff L., Wagner C.S. Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics 2009, 78(1):23-36.
26. Shelton R.D., Holdridge G. The US-EU race for leadership of science and technology: qualitative and quantitative indicators. Scientometrics 2004, 60(3):353-363.
27. Guan J., Ma N. China's emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: a comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience 'giants'. Res. Policy 2007, 36:880-886.
28. Jin B., Rousseau R. Evaluation of research performance and scientometric indicators in China. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research 2004, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht. H.F. Moed, W. Glanzel, U. Schmoch (Eds.).
29. Leydesdorff L. The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: a most recent update. Scientometrics 2008, 76(1):159-167.
30. Shelton R.D. Relations between national research investment and publication output: application to an American paradox. Scientometrics 2006, 74(2):191-205.
31. Youtie J., Shapira P., Porter A.L. Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. J. Nanopart. Res. 2008, 10:981-986.
32. Editorial, location, location, location. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2008, 3(6):309.
33. Lenoir T., Herron P. Tracking the current rise of Chinese pharmaceutical bionanotechnology. J. Biomed. Discovery Collab. 2009, 4:8.
34. U.S.Census International Population Clock: Country Rankings Retrieved May 12, 2010, from. http://sasweb.ssd.census.gov/idb/ranks.html,2010.
35. Archambalut E., Vignola-Gagne E., Cote G., Lariviere V., Gingras Y. Welcome to the linguistic warp zone: benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities. Paper presented at the Proceedings to the ISSI 2005, Stockholm July 24-28 2005.
36. Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved?. Br. Med. J. 1996, 313:411-413.
37. Grupp H., Mogee M.E. Indicators for national science and technology policy: their development, use, and possible misuse. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems 2004, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands. H.F. Moed, W. Glanzel, U. Schmoch (Eds.).
38. Seglen P.O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br. Med. J. 1997, 314:498-502.
39. Van Raan A.F.J. Measuring Science: Capita selecta of current main issus. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: the Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems 2004, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands. H.F. Moed, W. Glanzel, U. Schmoch (Eds.).
40. Whitehouse G.H. Citation rates and impact factors: should they matter?. Br. J. Radiol. 2001, 74:1-3.
41. Sivertsen G. Bibliografiske detakilder til dokumentasjon av vitenskapelige publikasjoner 2003, NIFU skriftserie nr, Oslo, Norway.
42. Katz J.S. Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics 1994, 31(1):31-43.
43. Zucker L.G., Darby M.R., Brewer M.B. Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises 1994, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
44. Zucker L.G., Darby M.R., Furner J., Liu R.C., Ma H. Minerva unbound: knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production. Res. Policy 2007, 36:850-863.
45. Leimu R., Koricheva J. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20(1):28-32.
46. Stanek K.Z. How Long Should an Astronomical Paper Be to Increase Its Impact? 2008, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
47. Garfield E. Dispelling a few common myths about journal citation impacts. Scientist 1997, 11(3):11-12.
48. White H.D. Authors as citers over time. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2001, 52(2):87-108.
49. Sala S.D., Brooks J. Multi-authors' self-citation: a further impact factor bias?. Cortex 2008, 44:1139-1145.
50. Todd P., Ladle R.J. Hidden dangers of a 'citation culture'. Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 2008, 8:13-16.
51. MacRoberts M.H., MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis: a study of uncited and seldom-cited influences. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2010, 61(1):1-13.
52. Bornmann L., Mutz R., Neuhaus C., Daniel H.-D. Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 2008, 8:1-10.
53. Todd P.A. Ambiguity, bias, and compromise: an ABC of bibliometric-based performance indicators. Environ. Plann. A 2009, 41:765-771.
54. Yeung H.W.C. Deciphering citations. Environ. Plann. A 2002, 34:2093-2106.
55. Sala S.D., Crawford J.R. Impact factor as we know it handicaps neuropsychology and neuropsychologists. Cortex 2006, 42:1-2.
56. Kostoff R.N., Murday J., Lau C.G.Y., Tolles W. The seminal literature of nanotechnology research. J. Nanopart. Res. 2006, 8:193-213.
57. Editorial, not-so-deep impact. Nature 2005, 435(7045):1003-1004.
58. Kostoff R.N., Stump J.A., Johnson D., Murday J., Lau C.G.Y., Tolles W. The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. J. Nanopart. Res. 2006, 8:310-321.
59. Woodside A.G. Journal and author impact metrics: an editorial. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62:1-4.
60. Noorden R.V. A profusion of measures. Nature 2010, 465:864-866.
61. Adams J., Griliches Z. Measuring science: an exploration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 1996, 93:12664-12670.
62. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) Main Science and Technology Indicators 2010.
63. Leydesdorff L., Wagner C.S. Macro-level indicators of the relations between research funding and research output. J. Informetrics 2009, (3):353-362.
64. EC (European Commission) Some figures about Nanotechnology R&D in Europe and Beyond, Brussels, European Commision, Research DG, Unit G4 Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies 2005.
65. Lux The Nanotech Report 2006, Lux Research, New York. 4th edition.
66. Lux The Nanotech Report 2007, Lux Research, New York. 5th edition.
67. Hullmann A. Who is winning the global nanorace?. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2006, 1:81-83.
68. Hullmann A. Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology. Scientometrics 2007, 70(3):739-758.
69. Youtie J., Shapira P. Mapping the nanotechnology enterprise: a multi-indicator analysis of emerging nanodistricts in the US South. J. Technol. Transf. 2008, 33:209-223.
70. Huang C., Notten A., Rasters N. Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies. J. Technol. Transf. 2010, 36(2):147-172.
71. Huang Z., Chen H., Yip A., Ng G., Guo F., Chen Z.-K., et al. Longitudinal patent analysis for nanosccale science and engineering: country, institution and technology field. J. Nanopart. Res. 2003, 5:333-363.
72. Li X., Lin Y., Chen H., Roco M.C. Worldwide nanotechnology development: a comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976-2004). J. Nanopart. Res. 2007, 9:977-1002.
73. Chen H., Roco M.C., Li X., Lin Y. Trends in nanotechnology patents. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2008, 3:123-125.
74. Pilkington A., Lee L.L., Chan C.K., Ramakrishna S. Defining key inventors: a comparison of fuel cell and nanotechnology industries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2009, 76:118-127.
75. Dang Y., Zhang Y., Fan L., Chen H., Roco M.C. Trends in worldwide nanotechnology patent applications: 1991 to 2008. J. Nanopart. Res. 2010, 12:687-706.
76. Kostoff R.N., Koytcheff R.G., Lau C.G.Y. Global nanotechnology research literature overview. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2007, 74:1733-1747.
77. Zhou P., Leydesdorff L. The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Res. Policy 2006, 35:83-104.