Comparison of China/USA science and technology performance

Kostoff, Ronald N.

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.06.004

Cited by 34 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Larsen et al (2008) analyzed relative positions of China, Europe, India, Japan and USA on scientific output and impact. Kostoff (2008) compared relative performance of China and USA in science and technology research. Bhattacharya and Bhati (2012) performed a comparative analysis of India and China in Nanotechnology research.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer science research: the top 100 institutions in India and in the world

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to perform a detailed scientometric and text-based analysis of Computer Science (CS) research output of the 100 most productive institutions in India and in the world. The analytical characterization is based on research output data indexed in Scopus during the last 25 years period . Our computational analysis involves a two-dimensional approach involving the standard scientometric methodology and textbased analysis. The scientometric characterization aims to assess CS domain research output in leading Indian institutions vis-à-vis the leading world institutions and to bring out the similarities and differences among them. It involves analysis along traditional scientometric indicators such as total output, citation-based impact assessment, co-authorship patterns, international collaboration levels etc. The text-based characterization aims to identify the key research themes and their temporal trends for the two sets. The key contribution of the experimental work is that it's an analytical characterization of its kind, which identifies characteristic similarities and differences in CS research landscape of Indian institutions vis-à-vis world institutions.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer science research: the top 100 institutions in India and in the world

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this vein, this research considered that US-China scientific collaboration occurred when scholars from the US and China co-published articles in research journals. Given that the US has been the number one knowledge producer in nanotechnology (Kostoff, 2008;Kostoff, 2012;Youtie, Shapira, & Porter, 2008) and building upon past studies, the first two hypotheses follow: H1. US-China collaboration positively impacts the quality of China's nanotechnology research.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does “birds of a feather flock together” matter—Evidence from a longitudinal study on US–China scientific collaboration

Tang

2013

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It was not coincident that China emerged as a leading nation in science production Zhou & Leydesdorff, 2008). In most fields, the USA had the quantity (number of papers) lead, although the China has made dramatic strides to overtake the USA, except the biomedical field and some aspects of environmental science (Kostoff, 2008 Besides, the 9 th position UK, the 13 th position Netherlands, the 16 th position Switzerland, and the 20 th position Australia had high cooperation rates no less than 50%. It was also reported that international collaboration in both within and outside the European Communities played an increasing role for European scientific literature (Narin et al, 1991;Glänzel, 1999).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Top 20 Countries/territoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%