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
Advertisements

A New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar

Lokman I. Meho and Kiduk Yang
School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, 2007

Abstract:

Academic institutions, federal agencies, publishers, editors, authors, and librarians increasingly rely on citation analysis for making hiring, promotion, tenure, funding, and/or reviewer and journal evaluation and selection decisions. The Institute for Scientific Information’s (ISI) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. ISI databases (or Web of Science), however, may no longer be adequate as the only or even the main sources of citations because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Whether these new databases and tools complement or represent alternatives to Web of Science (WoS) is important to explore. Using a group of 15 library and information science faculty members as a case study, this paper examines the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of WoS, Scopus, and GS, their overlap and uniqueness, quality and language of the citations, and the implications of the findings for citation analysis. The project involved citation searching for approximately 1,100 scholarly works published by the study group and over 200 works by a test group (an additional 10 faculty members). Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours.

Conclusions by the authors:

The study found that the addition of Scopus citations to those of WoS could significantly alter the ranking of scholars. The study also found that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals, among others. GS also indexes a wide variety of document types, some of which may be of significant value to researchers. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, reveals a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the extent of the scholarly relationship between LIS and other fields, as evidenced by the unique titles that cite LIS literature (e.g., titles from Cognitive Science, Computer Science, Education, and Engineering, to name only a few). Significantly, this study has demonstrated that:

  1. Although WoS remains an indispensable citation database, it should not be used alone for locating citations to an author or title, and, by extension, journals, departments, and countries; Scopus should be used concurrently.
  2. Although Scopus provides more comprehensive citation coverage of LIS and LIS-related literature than WoS for the period 1996-2005, the two databases complement rather than replace each other.
  3. While both Scopus and GS help identify a considerable number of citations not found in WoS, only Scopus significantly alters the ranking of scholars as measured by WoS.
    Although GS unique citations are not of the same quality as those found in WoS or Scopus, they could be very useful in showing evidence of broader international impact than could possibly be done through the two proprietary databases.
  4. GS value for citation searching purposes is severely diminished by its inherent problems. GS data are not limited to refereed, high quality journals and conference proceedings. GS is also very cumbersome to use and needs significant improvement in the way it displays search results and the downloading capabilities it offers for it to become a useful tool for large-scale citation analyses.
  5. Given the low overlap or high uniqueness between the three tools, they may all be necessary to develop more accurate maps or visualizations of scholarly networks and impact both within and between disciplines (Börner, Chen, & Boyack, 2003; Börner, Sanyal, & Vespignani, 2006; Small, 1999; White & McCain, 1997).
  6. Each database or tool requires specific search strategy(ies) in order to collect citation data, some more accurately and quickly (i.e., WoS and Scopus) than others (i.e., GS).

(Accepted for publication in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology)

The Rise and Rise of Citation Analysis

Meho, Lokman I. (2007) The Rise and Rise of Citation Analysis.

  Full text available as:PDF -.

Abstract:

With the vast majority of scientific papers now available online, this paper (accepted for publication in Physics World) describes how the Web is allowing physicists and information providers to measure more accurately the impact of these papers and their authors. Provides a historical background of citation analysis, impact factor, new citation data sources (e.g., Google Scholar, Scopus, NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service, MathSciNet, ScienceDirect, SciFinder Scholar, Scitation/SPIN, and SPIRES-HEP), as well as h-index, g-index, and a-index.

The author shows his awareness with the new dimensions of publishing:

Scientists now need to make it their job to disseminate their work on as many platforms and in as many different ways as possible, such as publishing in open access and high-impact journals, and posting their work in institutional repositories, personal homepages and e-print servers, if they want their peers to be aware of, use and ultimately cite their work. Publishing a journal article is now only the first step in disseminating or communicating one’s work; the Web provides a multitude of methods and tools to publicize its scholarly worth.

Excellent science requires excellent management!

The European University Association (EUA) has just published another quality report on Managing the University Community. The report is editedeuareport2007 by Bernadette Conraths and Annamaria Trusso and explores Good Practice in several institutions. Page 41-63 contains an excellent contribution on research management.

It describes a model for science management. and it states:

“Science management implies management for science, not management of science. It is science that determines contents and methods, while management sees to the effi ciency and effectiveness of processes. The optimisation of processes could result in a potential increase of 20% in performance which cannot be forfeited for science.” (p.41)

“In management, structures and processes evolve as organisational refl exes to the formation and
implementation of strategies. In the government system, it is the rules that dominate the goals, whereas in
the private system, the goals dominate the rules. Another aspect is that in the government system,
orderliness dominates cost effectiveness. Both aspects originate from a deeply rooted culture which resistant
to change. After an institution has gone through a strategy development process and arrived at a result – for example
in the shape of a guiding model – management is then faced with the task of implementation. In science,
the management process consists mainly of the following tasks:

  1. Strategy planning (where to?)
  2. Planning at subject level (what?)
  3. Financial planning (how much? when?)
  4. Staff planning, staff management (what qualities? what quantities?, what incentives?)
  5. Investment planning (what apparatus? For whom? From whom?)
  6. Innovation planning (what benefi t? For whom?)
  7. Communication (who has to say what to whom? Who has to ask whom what?)
  8. Execution (who does what by when: responsibilities?)
  9. Evaluation (external evaluation of quality and relevance)
  10. Cost control (what information is crucial to decision-making, and who can provide it for whom?)
  11. Control/revision (have the rules been observed, with what consequences?)
  12. Quality assurance (suffi cient quality? Certifi cation?)” (p.43)

Reflections on Google Scholar and Hirsch index

Anne Will Harzing reflects on these citation developments form the perspective of the business and management field. Anne WillShe matches these sources with the Publish or Perish software. This website is one of the soources very relevant to stay in touch with. Two new white papers were added: Reflections on Google Scholar and Reflectionson the h-index. These papers discuss the validity, assumptions, and limitationsof the underlying sources and methods used by Publish or Perish.

[http://www.harzing.com/pop_gs.htm]
[http://www.harzing.com/pop_hindex.htm]
[http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm]

New Google custom search engine for academia in Business and Management

The new Google custom search webservice is wonderfull. I have created a custom engine for our field. Now it is possible to search our globe in a selected set of institutes and associations in research in management. Today the counter is on 1900 websites. This will probably grow much more in the time to come. Please try it out for yourself. Academia in Business and Management

Competitors for the Web of Science?

Dana L. Roth has published an overview of the current alternatives. Services currently offering cited reference searching include (and I give the complete list to have a good look at it):

  1. Chemical Abstracts/SciFinder/SciFinder Scholar
  2. NASA Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service
  3. Amazon.com’s ‘Search Inside this Book’ program
  4. Scopus
  5. Scitation/Spin Web
  6. PROLA (Physical Review Online Archive)
  7. Citation Bridge (US Patents)
  8. US Patent and Trademark Office
  9. Google Scholar
  10. Optics InfoBase
  11. CiteSeer
  12. Science Direct
  13. PsycINFO
  14. IEEE Xplore
  15. Spires HEP
  16. IOP (Institute of Physics)
  17. CrossRef

She concludes her overview:

… Recent developments of ‘competitors’ to the WoS, while interesting and useful for quick links to some citing references, are clearly not a substitute for a comprehensive citation search. WoS currently indexes ~ 8000 journals from the sciences, engineering, social sciences and the humanities, and clearly remains the primary resource for citation searching….

Source: Dana L. Roth,The emergence of competitors to the Science CitationIndex and the Web of Science (pdf 6pp), Current Science Online, Vol. 89,No. 9, 10 November 2005,[http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1531.pdf]

RSS Business School News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Locations of Site Visitors
%d bloggers like this: