IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v110y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-016-2234-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bibliometric spectroscopy of Russia’s nanotechnology: 2000–2014

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander I. Terekhov

    (Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

The article investigates the scientific performance of Russia in the field of nanotechnology, focusing on production, impact and collaboration. An underlying multidisciplinary corpus of publications was extracted from the Science Citation Index Expanded database through relevant keywords. The various bibliometric findings are presented in a top-down sequence, starting with a comparative analysis of Russia and other selected countries, scrutinizing further a revitalization of science in universities and finally presenting some (possible) centers of excellence within the domestic scientific system. Focusing on the most highly-cited nano papers, I use the analysis not only in terms of percentages of world shares of publications, but also in terms of the proportions of top-1 and top-10% publications. It is shown that among the comparative countries, Russia maximally increases the citation impact depending on its internationalization efforts and that, for example, the co-authorship between Russia and Australia in the top-10% layer as well as between Russia and the UK in the top-1% layer is above expectation. Implementing the president’s initiative “Strategy of Nanoindustry Development” and the role of governmental university-centered policy are discussed in light of the performed bibliometric study.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander I. Terekhov, 2017. "Bibliometric spectroscopy of Russia’s nanotechnology: 2000–2014," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1217-1242, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:110:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2234-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2234-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2234-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-016-2234-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leydesdorff, Loet & Wagner, Caroline S. & Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 606-617.
    2. Maria Karaulova & Abdullah Gök & Oliver Shackleton & Philip Shapira, 2016. "Science system path-dependencies and their influences: nanotechnology research in Russia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 645-670, May.
    3. Sanjay K. Arora & Alan L. Porter & Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2013. "Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: an updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 351-370, April.
    4. Guan, Jiancheng & Ma, Nan, 2007. "China's emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience `giants'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 880-886, July.
    5. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Thed N. van Leeuwen, 2002. "Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 381-397, July.
    6. Sujit Bhattacharya & Shilpa & Madhulika Bhati, 2012. "China and India: The two new players in the nanotechnology race," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 59-87, October.
    7. Terekhov, Alexander, 2011. "Scientometric approach to nanotechnology," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 23(3), pages 3-12.
    8. Vladimir Pislyakov & Elena Shukshina, 2014. "Measuring excellence in Russia: Highly cited papers, leading institutions, patterns of national and international collaboration," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(11), pages 2321-2330, November.
    9. T. Gorjiara & C. Baldock, 2014. "Nanoscience and nanotechnology research publications: a comparison between Australia and the rest of the world," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(1), pages 121-148, July.
    10. Strathern, Marilyn, 1997. "‘Improving ratings’: audit in the British University system," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 305-321, July.
    11. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    12. Jonathan M. Levitt & Mike Thelwall, 2009. "Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(3), pages 434-442, March.
    13. Quirin Schiermeier, 2010. "Russia to boost university science," Nature, Nature, vol. 464(7293), pages 1257-1257, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. A. I. Terekhov, 2018. "Bibliometric Analysis Of Carbon Direction In Nanotechnology: 2000–2015," Economics of Science, Delo Publishing house, vol. 3(4).
    2. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Sandra Miguel & Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2018. "Dependencies and autonomy in research performance: examining nanoscience and nanotechnology in emerging countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1485-1504, June.
    3. Maia Chankseliani & Andrey Lovakov & Vladimir Pislyakov, 2021. "A big picture: bibliometric study of academic publications from post-Soviet countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8701-8730, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Dietmar Wolfram, 2018. "Difference in the impact of open-access papers published by China and the USA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1017-1037, May.
    2. Liu, Na & Guan, JianCheng, 2016. "Policy and innovation: Nanoenergy technology in the USA and China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 220-232.
    3. Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso & Brito, Ricardo, 2018. "Technological research in the EU is less efficient than the world average. EU research policy risks Europeans’ future," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 718-731.
    4. Xin Xu & Alice M. Tan & Star X. Zhao, 2015. "Funding ratios in social science: the perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 673-684, September.
    5. Sujit Bhattacharya & Shilpa & Arshia Kaul, 2015. "Emerging countries assertion in the global publication landscape of science: a case study of India," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 387-411, May.
    6. Weishu Liu & Mengdi Gu & Guangyuan Hu & Chao Li & Huchang Liao & Li Tang & Philip Shapira, 2014. "Profile of developments in biomass-based bioenergy research: a 20-year perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 507-521, May.
    7. Zhenyue Zhao & Xuelian Pan & Weina Hua, 2021. "Comparative analysis of the research productivity, publication quality, and collaboration patterns of top ranked library and information science schools in China and the United States," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 931-950, February.
    8. Koen Jonkers & Frédérique Sachwald, 2018. "The dual impact of ‘excellent’ research on science and innovation: the case of Europe," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 159-174.
    9. Anna A. Avanesova & Tatyana A. Shamliyan, 2018. "Comparative trends in research performance of the Russian universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2019-2052, September.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Jonathan Adams, 2019. "The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1669-1694, June.
    11. Bornmann, Lutz & Adams, Jonathan & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2018. "The negative effects of citing with a national orientation in terms of recognition: National and international citations in natural-sciences papers from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 931-949.
    12. Maria Karaulova & Abdullah Gök & Oliver Shackleton & Philip Shapira, 2016. "Science system path-dependencies and their influences: nanotechnology research in Russia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 645-670, May.
    13. Frank J. Rijnsoever & Laurens K. Hessels, 2021. "How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1917-1948, December.
    14. Tatiana Lisitskaya & Pavel Taranov & Ekaterina Ugnich & Vladimir Pislyakov, 2024. "Pillar Universities in Russia: Bibliometrics of ‘the second best’," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 365-383, February.
    15. Torger Möller & Marion Schmidt & Stefan Hornbostel, 2016. "Assessing the effects of the German Excellence Initiative with bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2217-2239, December.
    16. Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro & Ricardo Brito, 2019. "Probability and expected frequency of breakthroughs: basis and use of a robust method of research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 213-235, April.
    17. T. Gorjiara & C. Baldock, 2014. "Nanoscience and nanotechnology research publications: a comparison between Australia and the rest of the world," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(1), pages 121-148, July.
    18. Tudorel Andrei & Daniel Teodorescu & Andreea Mirică, 2016. "Beyond the Impact Factor: measuring the international visibility of Romanian social sciences journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 1-20, July.
    19. Loet Leydesdorff & Paul Wouters & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2129-2150, December.
    20. Ying Huang & Jannik Schuehle & Alan L. Porter & Jan Youtie, 2015. "A systematic method to create search strategies for emerging technologies based on the Web of Science: illustrated for ‘Big Data’," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2005-2022, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nanotechnology; Bibliometric analysis; Scientific performance; Russia;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • C89 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:110:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2234-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.