Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: A scientometric analysis, 1990-2009

Scientometrics

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 501-522

  Karpagam, R ^a   Gopalakrishnan, S ^a   Natarajan, M ^b   Ramesh Babu, B ^c  

^a ANNA UNIVERSITY   (India)

^b Tamil Arasi Publications   (India)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS   (India)

Author keywords

Collaborative coefficient; g index; h index; Nanoscience; Nanotechnology; p index

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053937872     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0477-8     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ajiferuke, I., Burell, O., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14, 421-433.
2. Alonso, S., et al. (2010). hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g-indices. Scientometrics, 82, 391-400. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-009-0047-5.
3. Bassecoulard, E., Lelu, A., & Zitt, M. (2007). Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis. Scientometrics, 70(3), 859-880.
4. Bhattacharya, S., & Nath, P. (2002). Using patent statistics as a measure of "technologies assertiveness"? A China-India comparison. Current Science, 83(1), 23-29.
5. Braun, T., Schubert, A. P., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321-325.
6. Chen, H., & Roco, M. C. (2009). Mapping nanotechnology innovations and knowledge (p. 330). New York, USA: Springer.
7. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152.
8. Franks, A. (1987). Nanotechnology. Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments, 20, 1442-1451.
9. Garg, K. C., & Pandhi, P. (1999). Scientometrics of laser research literature as viewed through, Journal of Current Laser Abstracts. Scientometrics, 45, 19-38.
10. Garg, K. C., et al. (2009). Bibliometrics of global malaria vaccine research. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 22-31.
11. Glanzel, W., Meyer, M., Du Plessis, M., Thijs, B., Magerman, T., Schlemmer, B., et al. (2003). Nanotechnology: Analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavour. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: Steupunt O& O Staisitieken.
12. Hirsch, (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of National Academic Science, USA, 102(46), 16569-16572.
13. Huang, Z., Chen, H., Chen, Z. K., & Roco, M. (2004). International nanotechnology development in 2003; country, institution and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 325-354.
14. Huang, M. H., Chiang, L. Y., & Chen, D. Z. (2003). Constructing a patent citation map using bibliographic coupling: A study of Taiwans high-tech companies. Scientometrics, 58(3), 458-489.
15. Hullmann, A. (2007). Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(3), 739-758.
16. Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in the nanotechnology: An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507-527.
17. Igami, M. (2008). Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications. Scientometrics, 77(2), 289-308.
18. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007). Global nanotechnology research metrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 565-601.
19. Kostoff, R. N., Stump, J. A., Johnson, D., Murday, J. S., Lau, C. G. Y., & Tolles, W. M. (2006). The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(3), 301-321.
20. Lawani, S. M. (1980). Quality, collaboration and citations in cancer research: A 268 bibliometric study. Ph. D. Dissertation, Florida State University, 395 pp.
21. Leydesdorff, L. (2008). The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update. Scientometrics, 76(1), 159-167.
22. Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3), 693-713.
23. Li, X., Chen, H., Dang, Y., Lin, Y., Larsen, C. A., & Roco, M. C. (2008). A longitudinal analysis of nanotechnology literature 1976-2994. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 3-22.
24. Lin, M.-W., & Zhang, J. (2007). Language trends in nanoscience and technology: The case of Chinese-language publications. Scientometrics, 70(3), 555-564.
25. Liu, X., et al. (2009). Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia and India. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 1845-1866.
26. Mahapatra, M. (1985). On the validity of the theory of exponential growth of scientific literature. In 15th IASLIC conference proceedings, Bangalore, IASLIC, pp 61-70.
27. Meyer, M. (2000a). Patent citations in a novel field of technology-what can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology? Scientometrics, 48(2), 151-178.
28. Meyer, M. (2000b). Does science push technology? Please citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409-434.
29. Meyer, M. (2000c). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49(1), 93-123.
30. Meyer, M. (2001). Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 51(1), 163-183.
31. Meyer, M. (2007). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path dependency. Scientometrics, 70(3), 779-810.
32. Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2), 195-205.
33. Meyer, M., Persson, O., & Power, Y. (2001). Nanotechnology expert group and eurotech data mapping excellence in nanotechnologies, EC, DG-research, Preparatory study.
34. Mithal, R., Ahmad, M., & Singh, G. (2005). Citation mapping of published literature on Embelia ribes. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 52(4), 308-316.
35. Mohan, L., Prakasan, E. R., Kademani, B. S., Surwase, G., Kumar, A., & Kumar, V. (2010). Research trends in nanoscience and nanotechnology in India. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 30(2), 40-58.
36. Nagpaul, P. S. (1995). Contribution of Indian universities to the mainstream scientific literature, a bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics, 32, 11-36.
37. Noyons, E. C., Buter, R. K., Hinze, S., van Raan, A. F. J., Schmoch, U., Heinze, T., & Rangnow, R. (2003). Mapping excellence in science and technology across Eruope: Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, EC, EC-PPN, CT 2002-0001.
38. Parr, D. (2005). Will nanotechnology make the world a better place? Trends in Biotechnology, 23(8), 395-398.
39. Pavitt, K. (1998). Do patents reflect the useful output of universities? Research Evaluation, 7(2), 105-111.
40. Pouris, A. (2007). Nanoscale research in South Africa: A mapping exercise based on scientometrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 541-553.
41. Prathap, G. (2010). The 100 most prolific economists using the p-index. Scientometrics, 84, 167-172. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-009-0068-0.
42. Prathap, G., & Gupta, B. M. (2009). Ranking of Indian engineering and technological institutes for their research performance during 1999-2008. Current Science, 97(3).
43. Radrigo, Costas., & Maria, Bordons. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 267-288.
44. Rajeswari, A. R. (1996). Indian patent statistics: An analysis. Scientometrics, 36(1), 109-130.
45. Retrieved from Scopus Info Site on March 2, 2010 http://info. scopus. com.
46. Roco, M. C. (2001). International strategyfor nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 3(5-6), 353-360.
47. Sangeetha, M. A., Chakrabarti, S., & Amba, S. (1999). Indian leather patents: An analysis. World Patent Information, 21(2), 69-73.
48. Savanur, K., & Srikanth, R. (2010). Modified collaborative coefficient: A new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration. Scientometrics, 84, 365-371. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-009-0100-4.
49. Schreiber, M. (2008). The influence of self-citations corrections on Egghe's g-index. Scientometrics, 76(1), 187-200.
50. Schultz, L. I., & Joutz, F. L. (2009). Methods for identifying emerging general purpose technologies: A case study of nanotechnologies. Scientometrics. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-010-0244-2.
51. Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425-465.
52. Schummer, J. (2007). The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: A bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy. Scientometrics, 70(3), 669-692.
53. Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6, 33-38.
54. Takeda, Y., et al. (2009). Nanobiotechnology as an emerging research domain from nanotechnology: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 80(1), 23-38.
55. Tol, R. S. J. (2009). The h-index and its alternatives: An application to the 100 most prolific economists. Scientometrics. doi: 10. 1007/s/11192-008-2079-7.
56. Wilson, C. S. (2001). Informetrics, In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, Medford NJ: Information Today, Inc. for the American Society for Information Science, pp. 3-143.
57. Wilson, M., Kannangara, K., Smith, G., Simmons, M., & Raguse, B. (2002). Nanotechnology: Basic science and emerging technologies. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.
58. Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (2006). Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: An application to nanosciences. Information Processing & Management, 42(6), 1513-1531.