Science system path-dependencies and their influences: nanotechnology research in Russia

Scientometrics

Volumn 107, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 645-670

  Karaulova, Maria ^a,b   Gök, Abdullah ^a   Shackleton, Oliver ^a   Shapira, Philip ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b SCUOLA SUPERIORE SANT ANNA   (Italy)

^c GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Nanotechnology; Path dependence; Russia

Indexed keywords

EID: 84961990875     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1916-3     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Agency of Strategic Initiatives. (2016). National Technology Initiative. https://asi.ru/eng/nti/. Accessed 25 Jan 2016.
2. Alferov, Z. I. (1996). Science and technology policy in Russia: A view from the Russian academy. In G. Bugliarello, N. K. Pak, Z. I. Alferov, & J. H. Moore (Eds.), East-West Technology Transfer, NATO ASI Series (Vol. 3, pp. 53–61). Netherlands: Springer.
3. Andrievski, R. A. (2003). Modern nanoparticle research in Russia. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,5(5–6), 415–418. doi:10.1023/B:NANO.0000006092.41059.82.
4. Appelbaum, R. P., Parker, R., & Cao, C. (2011). Developmental state and innovation: Nanotechnology in China. Global Networks,11(3), 298–314. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2011.00327.x.
5. Arora, S. K., Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2013). Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: An updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs. Scientometrics,95(1), 351–370. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0903-6.
6. Barabasi, A. L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications,311(3–4), 590–614. doi:10.1016/S0378-4371(02)00736-7.
7. Bhattacharya, S., & Bhati, M. (2011). China’s emergence as a global nanotech player: Lessons for countries in transition. China Report,47(4), 243–262. doi:10.1177/000944551104700401.
8. Borjas, G. J., & Doran, K. B. (2014). How high-skill immigration affects science: Evidence from the collapse of the USSR (NBER Chapters). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/13401.html. Accessed 12 May 2015.
9. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., Walch-Solimena, C., & Ettl, C. (2011). Mapping excellence in the geography of science: An approach based on Scopus data. Journal of Informetrics,5(4), 537–546. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.005.
10. Bornmann, L., Wagner, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). BRICS countries and scientific excellence: A bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,66(7), 1507–1513.
11. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy,33(4), 599–616. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008.
12. Cao, C., Li, N., Li, X., & Liu, L. (2013). Reforming China’s S&T system. Science,341(6145), 460–462. doi:10.1126/science.1234206.
13. Cherven, K. (2013). Network graph analysis and visualization with Gephi. Chicago: Packt Publishing Ltd.
14. Clark, F. (2013). Reforming the Russian Academy of Sciences. Lancet,382(9902), 1392–1393. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62142-X.
15. Connolly, R. (2013). State industrial policy in Russia: The nanotechnology industry. Post-Soviet Affairs,29(1), 1–30. doi:10.1080/1060586X.2013.778546.
16. Dezhina, I. (2010). “Okhota za Golovami: Kak razvivat’ svyazi s rossiyskoi nauchnoi diasporoi? [“Headhunting”: How to Develop Links with the Russia Science Diaspora?]. In Scientometric Research (Ed.), 2010 [Naukometricheskie Issledovaniya 2010] (pp. 47–74). Russian Federation: INION RAS.
17. Dezhina, I., & Ponomarev, A. (2013). 1000 laboratorii’: novye printsipy organizatsii nauchnoi’ raboty v Rossii [1000 Laboratories: new principles of organisation of scientific work in Russia]. Voprosy Ekonomiki,3, 70–82.
18. Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (1994). An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,4(3), 153–172. doi:10.1007/BF01236366.
19. European Commission. (2013). Nanometrics: A Technometric and Socio-Economic System to Support the Development of European Nanotechnology Strategy Options (Part I: Monitoring System) (p. 72). Luxembourg: Ramboll Management Consulting Oy.
20. Finardi, U. (2015). Scientific collaboration between BRICS countries. Scientometrics,102(2), 1139–1166. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1490-5.
21. Fortescue, S. (1992). The Russian-Academy-of-sciences and the Soviet-Academy-of-sciences: Continuity or disjunction. Minerva,30(4), 459–478. doi:10.1007/BF01096573.
22. Ganguli, I. (2014). Scientific brain drain and human capital formation after the end of the Soviet Union. International Migration,52(5), 95–110. doi:10.1111/imig.12165.
23. Gianella, C., & Tompson, W. (2007). Stimulating Innovation in Russia (OECD Economics Department Working Papers). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/workingpaper/324526053041. Accessed 29 June 2015.
24. Glanzel, W. (1996). A bibliometric approach to social sciences, national research performances in 6 selected social science areas, 1990–1992. Scientometrics,35(3), 291–307. doi:10.1007/BF02016902.
25. Glanzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics,51(1), 69–115. doi:10.1023/A:1010512628145.
26. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Springer Netherlands. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_12. Accessed 13 July 2015.
27. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., & Czerwon, H.-J. (1999). A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985–1995). Scientometrics,45(2), 185–202. doi:10.1007/BF02458432.
28. Gokhberg, L., Fursov, K., & Karasev, O. (2012). Nanotechnology development and regulatory framework: The case of Russia. Technovation,32(3–4), 161–162. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2012.01.002.
29. Government of Russia. (2009). The Directive of the Government of Russia on the 8th April 2009 No 312 “On the evaluation of scientific research performance of organisations engaged in scientific, construction and technological research of civil purpose.” http://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/95302/. Accessed 25 Jan 2016.
30. Graham, L. R. (1998). What have we learned about science and technology from the russian experience?. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
31. Graham, L. R., & Dezhina, I. (2008). Science in the New Russia: Crisis, Aid. Reform: Indiana University Press.
32. Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy,38(4), 610–623. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.014.
33. Huang, C., Su, J., Xie, X., Ye, X., Li, Z., Porter, A., & Li, J. (2015). A bibliometric study of China’s science and technology policies: 1949–2010. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1406-4.
34. Hullmann, A. (2006). Who is winning the global nanorace? Nature Nanotechnology,1(2), 81–83. doi:10.1038/nnano.2006.110.
35. Ioffe Physical Technical Institute. (2015). Fizika Tvyordogo Tela/Physics of the Solid State. http://journals.ioffe.ru/ftt/. Accessed 27 June 2015.
36. JETP Letters. (2015). Information for Authors (in Russian). http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru/ru/info.shtml. Accessed 27 June 2015.
37. Karaulova, M., Gok, A., Shackleton, O., & Shapira, P. (2015). Nanotechnology research in Post-Soviet Russia: Science system path-dependencies and their influences. In Proceedings. Presented at the ISSI 2015: 15th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Istanbul.
38. Karaulova, M., Shackleton, O., Gok, A., Kotsemir, M. N., & Shapira, P. (2014). Nanotechnology research and innovation in Russia: A bibliometric analysis (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2521012). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2521012. Accessed 22 Jan 2015.
39. Klochikhin, E. A. (2012). Russia’s innovation policy: Stubborn path-dependencies and new approaches. Research Policy,41(9), 1620–1630. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.023.
40. Klochikhin, E. A. (2013). Innovation system in transition: Opportunities for policy learning between China and Russia. Science and Public Policy,40(5), 657–673. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct021.
41. Klochikhin, E. A., & Shapira, P. (2012). Engineering small worlds in a big society: Assessing the early impacts of nanotechnology in China. Review of Policy Research,29(6), 752–775. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00596.x.
42. Kostoff, R. N. (2008). Comparison of China/USA science and technology performance. Journal of Informetrics,2(4), 354–363. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.06.004.
43. Kostoff, R. N., Barth, R. B., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2008). Quality vs. quantity of publications in nanotechnology field from the People’s Republic of China. Chinese Science Bulletin,53(8), 1272–1280. doi:10.1007/s11434-008-0183-y.
44. Kotsemir, M. N. (2012). Publication activity of Russian researches in leading international scientific journals. Acta Naturae,4(2), 14–34.
45. Kozak, M., Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). How have the Eastern European countries of the former Warsaw Pact developed since 1990? A bibliometric study. Scientometrics,102(2), 1101–1117. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1439-8.
46. Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Statistics for the dynamic analysis of scientometric data: The evolution of the sciences in terms of trajectories and regimes. Scientometrics,96(3), 731–741. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0917-0.
47. Liebowitz, S., & Margolis, S. (1995). Path dependence, lock-in, and history. Journal of Law Economics and Organization,11(1), 205–226.
48. Liu, X., Kaza, S., Zhang, P., & Chen, H. (2011). Determining inventor status and its effect on knowledge diffusion: A study on nanotechnology literature from China, Russia, and India. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(6), 1166–1176. doi:10.1002/asi.21528.
49. Liu, X., Zhang, P., Li, X., Chen, H., Dang, Y., Larson, C., et al. (2009). Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia, and India. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,11(8), 1845–1866. doi:10.1007/s11051-009-9698-7.
50. Lux Research. (2013). Nanotechnology Update: Corporations Up Their Spending as Revenues for Nano-enabled Products Increase.
51. Markusova, V. A., Ivanov, V. V., & Varshavskii, A. E. (2009a). Bibliometric indicators of Russian Science and of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1997–2007). Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences,79(3), 197–204. doi:10.1134/S1019331609030010.
52. Markusova, V. A., Jansz, M., Libkind, A. N., Libkind, I., & Varshavsky, A. (2009b). Trends in Russian research output in post-Soviet era. Scientometrics,79(2), 249–260. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0416-0.
53. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I. V. (2010). Scientific collaboration between Russia and the EU countries: A bibliometric analysis. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences,80(1), 57–62. doi:10.1134/S1019331610010077.
54. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography,6(4), 395–437. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbl012.
55. Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy,35(10), 1646–1662. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.013.
56. Ministry of Economics of Russia. (2015). Activity of institutes of development. http://economy.gov.ru/minec/activity/sections/instdev/institute/. Accessed 29 June 2015.
57. Moed, H. F. (2002). Measuring China’s research performance using the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics,53(3), 281–296. doi:10.1023/A:1014812810602.
58. Moed, H. F., Bruin, R. E. D., & Leeuwen, T. N. V. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics,33(3), 381–422. doi:10.1007/BF02017338.
59. Mokhnacheva, Y. V., & Kharybina, T. N. (2011). Research performance of RAS institutions and Russian universities: A comparative bibliometric analysis. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences,81(6), 569–574. doi:10.1134/S1019331611060104.
60. Nature. (2009). Russia’s grand plan. Nature,461(7267), 1028. doi:10.1038/4611028a.
61. Nature. (2013). Russian roulette. Nature,499(7456), 5–6. doi:10.1038/499005b.
62. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674272286.
63. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,101, 5200–5205. doi:10.1073/pnas.0307545100.
64. Novoselov, K. S., Geim, A. K., Morozov, S. V., Jiang, D., Katsnelson, M. I., Grigorieva, I. V., et al. (2005). Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene. Nature,438(7065), 197–200. doi:10.1038/nature04233.
65. OECD. (2011). OECD reviews of innovation policy: Russian Federation 2011. OECD Publishing. http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/science-and-technology/oecd-reviews-of-innovation-policy-russian-federation-2011_9789264113138-en#page13. Accessed 7 Jan 2015.
66. Ogorodova, L. (2014). « Science is a Risk Zone ». http://lenta.ru/articles/2014/10/27/ogorodova/. Accessed 28 June 2015.
67. Oleinik, A. (2012). Publication patterns in Russia and the West compared. Scientometrics,93(2), 533–551. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0698-5.
68. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review,94(2), 251–267. doi:10.2307/2586011.
69. Pislyakov, V., & Shukshina, E. (2014). Measuring excellence in Russia: Highly cited papers, leading institutions, patterns of national and international collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,65(11), 2321–2330. doi:10.1002/asi.23093.
70. Pokrovsky, V. (2015). Russia targets Western ties. Science,349(6245), 224–225. doi:10.1126/science.349.6245.224.
71. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,10(5), 715–728. doi:10.1007/s11051-007-9266-y.
72. Presidium RAS. (2015). Directive of Presidium of Russian Academy of Sciences “On the Establishment of the Titie” Professor RAS“and on Agreement on the Provision of the title “Professor RAS”. http://www.ras.ru/presidium/documents/directions.aspx?ID=adf67dc8-84b3-4350-b4be-7e1dce9b71ec. Accessed 25 Jan 2016.
73. Radosevic, S., & Yoruk, E. (2014). Are there global shifts in the world science base? Analysing the catching up and falling behind of world regions. Scientometrics,101(3), 1897–1924. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1344-1.
74. Roco, M. C. (2011). The long view of nanotechnology development: The National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,13(2), 427–445. doi:10.1007/s11051-010-0192-z.
75. Roffey, R. (2010). Biotechnology in Russia: Why is it not a success story? (p. 178). Stokholm: FOI—Swedish Defence Research Agency. http://www.foi.se/report?rNo=FOI-R–2986–SE. Accessed 23 Jan 2016.
76. RSF. (2016). Russian Science Fund. http://www.rscf.ru/ru/about. Accessed 25 Jan 2016.
77. Schienstock, G. (2007). From path dependency to path creation Finland on its way to the knowledge-based economy. Current Sociology,55(1), 92–109. doi:10.1177/0011392107070136.
78. Schiermeier, Q. (2007). Russia pins its hopes on “nano”. Nature,448(7151), 233. doi:10.1038/448233a.
79. Schiermeier, Q. (2009). High hopes for Russia’s nanotech firms. Nature News,461(7267), 1036–1037. doi:10.1038/4611036a.
80. Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2010). Follow the money. Nature,468(7324), 627–628. doi:10.1038/468627a.
81. Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Li, Y. (2015). Social science contributions compared in synthetic biology and nanotechnology. Journal of Responsible Innovation,2(1), 143–148. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.1002123.
82. Sokolov, A. (2013). Foresight in Russia: Implications for Policy Making. In D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg, & A. Sokolov (Eds.), Science, technology and innovation policy for the future (pp. 183–198). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31827-6_10. Accessed 22 Jan 2016.
83. Springer. (2015). Physics of the solid state. Springer. http://www.springer.com/materials/journal/11451. Accessed 27 June 2015.
84. Stishov, S. M. (2013). Russian science in danger. Nature Physics,9(11), 684–685. doi:10.1038/nphys2801.
85. Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2011). Regional development and interregional collaboration in the growth of nanotechnology research in China. Scientometrics,86(2), 299–315. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0274-9.
86. Terekhov, A. (2011). Providing personnel for priority research fields (the example of nanotechnologies). Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences,81(1), 19–24. doi:10.1134/S1019331611010047.
87. Terekhov, A. (2012). Evaluating the performance of Russia in the research in nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,14(11), 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11051-012-1250-5.
88. Terekhov, A. (2013). Russia’s policy and standing in nanotechnology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,33(3–4), 96–114. doi:10.1177/0270467614524127.
89. Terekhov, A. (2015). R&D on carbon nanostructures in Russia: Scientometric analysis, 1990–2011. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,17(2), 81. doi:10.1007/s11051-015-2897-5.
90. The Government of Russia. (2004). Concept of the Development in Russian Federation of Research in the Area if Nanotechnology until 2010. http://www.rusnanonet.ru/docs/16687/.
91. The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations (p. 113). London. https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/knowledge-networks-nations/report/.
92. UNESCO. (2015). Russian Federation. Country profile. Institute for Statistics, United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. http://www.uis.unesco.org/DataCentre/Pages/country-profile.aspx?code=RUS®ioncode=40530. Accessed 7 Oct 2015.
93. Vercueil, J. (2014). Could Russia become more innovative? Coordinating key actors of the innovation system. Post-Communist Economies,26(4), 498–521. doi:10.1080/14631377.2014.964464.
94. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy,34(10), 1608–1618. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.002.
95. Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics,62(1), 117–131. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7.
96. Wilson, C. S., & Markusova, V. A. (2004). Changes in the scientific output of Russia from 1980 to 2000, as reflected in the Science Citation Index, in relation to national politico-economic changes. Scientometrics,59(3), 345–389. doi:10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018539.93567.d8.
97. Wong, C.-Y., & Wang, L. (2015). Trajectories of science and technology and their co-evolution in BRICS: Insights from publication and patent analysis. Journal of Informetrics,9(1), 90–101. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.006.
98. Yablokov, A. (2014). Academy “reform” is stifling Russian science. Nature,511(7507), 7. doi:10.1038/511007a.
99. Yaminsky, I. (2006). Outlook into the nanomedicine research in Russia. Nanomedicine-Nanotechnology Biology and Medicine,2(4), 298. doi:10.1016/j.nano.2006.10.095.
100. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy,35(1), 83–104. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.006.
101. Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (2004). Internationalisation in Science in the Prism of Bibliometric Indicators. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 407–436). Springer Netherlands. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_19. Accessed 22 Jan 2016.
102. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1995). Virtuous circles of productivity: Star bioscientists and the institutional transformation of industry (Working Paper No. 5342). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w5342. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
103. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,93(23), 12709–12716. doi:10.1073/pnas.93.23.12709.