Abstract

This paper presents a comparative benchmarking of scientometric indicators to characterize the patterns of publication and research performance at the country level, in a specific field (nanoscience and nanotechnology) during the period 2003-2013. The aim is to assess how decisive collaboration may be in attaining a sound level of scientific performance, and how important leadership is for publication. To this end, we used a new methodological approach that contributes to the debate about scientific autonomy or dependency of countries in their scientific performance, and which may serve as an aid in decision-making with regard to research management. The results reveal that in terms of output, USA and China are the main producers; and due to the huge increase in their publications, Iran, India and Australia can be considered emerging countries. The results highlight USA, Ireland and Singapore as the countries with the highest levels of normalized citation impact, scientific excellence and good management of leadership, all of which suggest strong scientific development as well as scientific autonomy. Also worth mentioning is the high visibility and scientific consolidation of China and Australia, despite the meager growth of their output. Moreover, the performance results indicate that in most cases the countries whose pattern of publication is more international tend to have greater visibility. Yet a high degree of leadership does not always translate as a high performance level; the contrary is often true. Due to the limitations of the sample and characteristics of the field, we propose that future studies evaluate the generation of new knowledge in this field and refine the approach presented here, so as to better measure scientific performance.

Highlights

  • Metrics provide well-defined methods to approach scientific communication, assuming that actors, events, and contexts involved in this activity are all entities that can be quantified (Borgman and Furner, 2002)

  • Communication is crucial for scientists and other stakeholders to keep updated and to be aware of how research fundingrelated decisions are related with the array of objective measures of scholarly performance

  • Since Feynman’s rousing speech in 1960, this scientific field has attracted the attention of policymakers worldwide, and several countries have included NST research programs in their agendas (Feynman, 1960; Shapira and Wang, 2010)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Metrics provide well-defined methods to approach scientific communication, assuming that actors, events, and contexts involved in this activity are all entities that can be quantified (Borgman and Furner, 2002). The relevance of research is a key concern when scientific research policies are defined, anywhere in the world. Policy-makers, decision-makers, and the general public can benefit from scholarly metrics (ChinchillaRodríguez et al, 2015). Over the last three decades, nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) has become a scientific field of great relevance. Since Feynman’s rousing speech in 1960, this scientific field has attracted the attention of policymakers worldwide, and several countries have included NST research programs in their agendas (Feynman, 1960; Shapira and Wang, 2010)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call