China doubles research output, leaving West in its wake

 

Research output in China has exploded in the past five years, far outpacing activity in the rest of the world, according to a new report by Thomson Reuters. China has already overtaken the EU and Japan and will leapfrog the US within the next decade, the report predicts.

The Global Research Report on China shows the Asian giant published twice as many research papers last year as in 2004. The growth over the past decade is even more dramatic.

Chinese scientists published 20,000 papers in 1998 but this figure jumped to 112,000 in 2008.

EurActiv.com – China doubles research output, leaving West in its wake | EU – European Information on Science & Research.

On Reuters:

China's Research Output More Than Doubled Since 2004, Thomson Reuters Study
Reveals
Nation Stands Second Only to United States

PHILADELPHIA and LONDON, Nov. 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- A study from Thomson
Reuters released today shows explosive growth in research output from China,
far outpacing research activity in the rest of the world.

At this pace, China will overtake the USA within the next decade.

The study, Global Research Report: China, informs policymakers about the
research and collaboration potential of China and its current place in world
science. The study is part of the Global Research Report series from Thomson
Reuters that illustrates the changing landscape and dynamics of global
research around the world.

"If China's research growth remains this rapid and substantial, European and
North American institutions will want to be part of it," said Jonathan Adams,
director of research evaluation at Thomson Reuters. "China no longer depends
on links to traditional G8 partners to help its knowledge development. When
Europe and the USA visit China they can only do so as equal partners."

The study draws on data found in Web of Science®, available on the Web of
Knowledge(SM) platform -- the world's largest citation environment of the
highest quality scholarly literature. Key findings include:
    --  China's output increased from just over 20,000 research papers in 1998
        to nearly 112,000 in 2008, The nation doubled its output since 2004
        alone. China surpassed Japan, the UK and Germany in 2006 and now
stands
        second only to the USA.
    --  China is heading to overtake the USA in output within the next decade.
    --  China's research is concentrated in the physical sciences and
        technology. Materials science, chemistry and physics predominate.
        Looking toward the future, rapid growth can be seen in agricultural
        sciences and life sciences fields such as immunology, microbiology,
and
        molecular biology and genetics.
    --  The USA stands out in terms of collaboration with China., US-based
        authors contributed to nearly 9 percent of papers from China-based
        institutions between 2004 and 2008.

    --  Regional collaboration expansion is notable, especially with Japan,
        South Korea, Singapore and Australia.

For more information, please visit
http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/grr/.

SOURCE  Thomson Reuters

Leiden Professors and their fascination; a good example for others

Leiden University has created a wonderful website about the work and fascination of it’s immense intellectual capital over the centuries. All profs in one place. Well done!

This is what I call a valuable nurturing of your intellectual heritage.

Does it Take an Expert to Lead Experts? Professionals versus Managers in Universities

Amanda H. Goodall argues in her PhD thesis (March 2007) that where expert knowledge is the key
factor that characterizes an organization it is expert knowledge that
should also be key in the selection of its leader.

There is a special chapter on business schools.

Page 70: results

It offers simple evidence that the higher a business school is in the FT Top-100 ranking the higher are the lifetime citations of its dean. The correlation is found for the international group of 100 business schools, for 58 US schools, and, in a different data set, for 38 UK university business schools in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise.

Abstract:

Although this thesis focuses on those who lead universities, the
theoretical explanations outlined here are more general. They could also
apply to other heads of key strategic units within institutions, for example,
department chairs. But another question of importance to the university
system as a whole is that of whether top scholars should be leading
national research institutes and funding bodies? These are organizations
such as the National Institutes for Health and the National Science
Foundation in the US, the research councils in the UK (e.g. Medical
Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council) and also
bodies such as the Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE). The importance of such bodies seems indisputable, and some
might argue that their leaders are among the guardians of the higher
education sector, and therefore that they should have extensive inherent
knowledge about scholarship, and be seen to be credible by those they
serve in universities.
The research findings of the thesis can, arguably, be directly applied to
the real world. This leads us to ask: who might be interested in the
thesis? There are a number of potential beneficiaries. Universities as
institutions do not differ substantially the world over. It is anticipated
therefore, that interest may come from universities and also policy
analysts, government officials and politicians in countries considering
making changes to their higher education systems — for example,
Portugal, Italy and Germany32.
There is limited public information about what research universities
should be looking for in their leaders. Thus, it is anticipated that those
who appoint to the top university jobs, such as members of university
governing boards and also head-hunters from recruitment firms, should
be interested in these findings.
This empirical work is about leaders of institutions dominated by experts
and professionals. Hence, the findings are also relevant to firms such as
architects, lawyers, accountants and management consultancies. It could
also be argued that the recommendations will be of equal significance to
arts organizations such as theatres and galleries.
This study will make an intellectual contribution that will be of benefit to
the academic community. Specifically, the thesis will add to the body of
work in leadership and strategic management. The work also contributes
towards education research and furthers our understanding about the
appropriate selection of leaders and the important role of governance.

Does it Take an Expert to Lead Experts? Professionals versus Managers in Universities
Amanda H. Goodall
Warwick Business School
University of Warwick
Dissertation submitted for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
MARCH 2007