IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v89y2011i2d10.1007_s11192-011-0477-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009

Author

Listed:
  • R. Karpagam

    () (Anna University)

  • S. Gopalakrishnan

    () (Anna University)

  • M. Natarajan

    () (Tamil Arasi Publications)

  • B. Ramesh Babu

    () (University of Madras)

Abstract

This paper analyses the growth pattern of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology literature in India during 1990–2009 (20 years). The Scopus international multidisciplinary bibliographical database has been used to identify the Indian contributions on the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The study measures the performance based on several parameters, country annual growth rate, authorship pattern, collaborative index, collaborative coefficient, modified collaborative coefficient, subject profile, etc. Further the study examines national publication output and impact in terms of average citations per paper, international collaboration output and share, contribution and impact of Indian Institutions and impact of Indian journals.

Suggested Citation

  • R. Karpagam & S. Gopalakrishnan & M. Natarajan & B. Ramesh Babu, 2011. "Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 501-522, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:89:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0477-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0477-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0477-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    ---><---

    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. K. C. Garg & P. Padhi, 1999. "Scientometrics of laser research literature as viewed through the Journal of Current Laser Abstracts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(2), pages 251-268, June.
    2. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    3. Masatsura Igami, 2008. "Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 289-308, November.
    4. Leo Egghe, 2006. "Theory and practise of the g-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 131-152, October.
    5. Angela Hullmann, 2007. "Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 739-758, March.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff, 2008. "The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(1), pages 159-167, July.
    7. Keith Pavitt, 1998. "Do patents reflect the useful research output of universities?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 105-111, August.
    8. Kiran Savanur & R. Srikanth, 2010. "Modified collaborative coefficient: a new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 365-371, August.
    9. Martin Meyer, 2000. "What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 93-123, August.
    10. Martin Meyer, 2000. "Patent Citations in a Novel Field of Technology — What Can They Tell about Interactions between Emerging Communities of Science and Technology?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 48(2), pages 151-178, September.
    11. Ronald N. Kostoff & Raymond G. Koytcheff & Clifford G. Y. Lau, 2007. "Global nanotechnology research metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 565-601, March.
    12. Sangeetha, M. A. & Chakrabarti, S. & Amba, S., 1999. "Indian leather patents: an analysis," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 69-73, June.
    13. Michael Schreiber, 2008. "The influence of self-citation corrections on Egghe’s g index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(1), pages 187-200, July.
    14. Martin S. Meyer, 2001. "Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology:An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 163-183, April.
    15. Gangan Prathap, 2010. "The 100 most prolific economists using the p-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 167-172, July.
    16. Joachim Schummer, 2007. "The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: A bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 669-692, March.
    17. Joachim Schummer, 2004. "Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(3), pages 425-465, March.
    18. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou, 2007. "Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 693-713, March.
    19. Elise Bassecoulard & Alain Lelu & Michel Zitt, 2007. "Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 859-880, March.
    20. Rodrigo Costas & María Bordons, 2008. "Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 267-288, November.
    21. S. Alonso & F. J. Cabrerizo & E. Herrera-Viedma & F. Herrera, 2010. "hg-index: a new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g-indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 391-400, February.
    22. Anastassios Pouris, 2007. "Nanoscale research in South Africa: A mapping exercise based on scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 541-553, March.
    23. Min-Wei Lin & Jingjing Zhang, 2007. "Language trends in nanoscience and technology: The case of Chinese-language publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 555-564, March.
    24. Yoshiyuki Takeda & Shiho Mae & Yuya Kajikawa & Katsumori Matsushima, 2009. "Nanobiotechnology as an emerging research domain from nanotechnology: A bibliometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(1), pages 23-38, July.
    25. Martin Meyer, 2007. "What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 779-810, March.
    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. Nan Zhang & Shanshan Wan & Peiling Wang & Peng Zhang & Qiang Wu, 2018. "A bibliometric analysis of highly cited papers in the field of Economics and Business based on the Essential Science Indicators database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1039-1053, August.
    2. 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.
    3. R. S. Bajwa & K. Yaldram & S. Rafique, 2013. "A scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 333-342, January.
    4. Vivek Kumar Singh & Sumit Kumar Banshal & Khushboo Singhal & Ashraf Uddin, 2015. "Scientometric mapping of research on ‘Big Data’," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 727-741, November.
    5. Jiancheng Guan & He Wei, 2015. "A bilateral comparison of research performance at an institutional level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 147-173, July.
    6. Sameer Kumar & Jariah Mohd. Jan, 2013. "Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 491-517, December.

    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. Guang Yu & Ming-Yang Wang & Da-Ren Yu, 2010. "Characterizing knowledge diffusion of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology by citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 81-97, July.
    2. Ahmad Barirani & Bruno Agard & Catherine Beaudry, 2013. "Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1111-1136, March.
    3. María-Antonia Ovalle-Perandones & Juan Gorraiz & Martin Wieland & Christian Gumpenberger & Carlos Olmeda-Gómez, 2013. "The influence of European Framework Programmes on scientific collaboration in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(1), pages 59-74, October.
    4. Scott D. Bass & Lukasz A. Kurgan, 2010. "Discovery of factors influencing patent value based on machine learning in patents in the field of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 217-241, February.
    5. Katarina Larsen, 2008. "Knowledge network hubs and measures of research impact, science structure, and publication output in nanostructured solar cell research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(1), pages 123-142, January.
    6. Yoscelina Iraida Hernandez-García & Mónica Anzaldo Montoya, 2021. "Flow of ideas in the study of communication channels and references in publications on nanotechnology applied to food and agriculture in Mexico," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 995-1017, February.
    7. Nicolas Battard, 2012. "Convergence and multidisciplinarity in nanotechnology: Laboratories as technological hubs," Post-Print hal-01514795, HAL.
    8. Jia Zheng & Zhi-yun Zhao & Xu Zhang & Dar-zen Chen & Mu-hsuan Huang, 2014. "International collaboration development in nanotechnology: a perspective of patent network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 683-702, January.
    9. M. Meyer & K. Debackere & W. Glänzel, 2010. "Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 527-539, November.
    10. R. S. Bajwa & K. Yaldram & S. Rafique, 2013. "A scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 333-342, January.
    11. Goio Etxebarria & Mikel Gomez-Uranga & Jon Barrutia, 2012. "Tendencies in scientific output on carbon nanotubes and graphene in global centers of excellence for nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 253-268, April.
    12. D Gnana Bharathi, 2013. "Evaluation and Ranking of Researchers – Bh Index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    13. Yu Liu & Wei Zuo & Ying Gao & Yanhong Qiao, 2013. "Comprehensive geometrical interpretation of h-type indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 605-615, August.
    14. Poh Kam Wong & Yuen Ping Ho & Casey K. Chan, 2007. "Internationalization and evolution of application areas of an emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 715-737, March.
    15. Shyh-Jen Wang, 2007. "Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(3), pages 509-522, June.
    16. Vivek Kumar Singh & Sumit Kumar Banshal & Khushboo Singhal & Ashraf Uddin, 2015. "Scientometric mapping of research on ‘Big Data’," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 727-741, November.
    17. Aashish Mehta & Patrick Herron & Yasuyuki Motoyama & Richard Appelbaum & Timothy Lenoir, 2012. "Globalization and de-globalization in nanotechnology research: the role of China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 439-458, November.
    18. Pao-Long Chang & Chao-Chan Wu & Hoang-Jyh Leu, 2010. "Using patent analyses to monitor the technological trends in an emerging field of technology: a case of carbon nanotube field emission display," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(1), pages 5-19, January.
    19. Laura I. Schultz & Frederick L. Joutz, 2010. "Methods for identifying emerging General Purpose Technologies: a case study of nanotechnologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 155-170, October.
    20. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.

    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:89:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0477-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.