Profiling leading scientists in nanobiomedical science: interdisciplinarity and potential leading indicators of research directions

Abstract

Nanobiomedical science is a promising area in the application of nanotechnology. This paper profiles a group of 21 leading scientists in nanobiomedicine based on high publication rate and high citations. Comparisons with other researchers indicate that the leaders publish more in high impact journals and collaborate more extensively (team science). They reside most heavily in the United States and Western Europe. We compare their research publications using multiple indicators–Integration, Specialization and a Multidisciplinary Index. Relations among interdisciplinarity indicators generated support a three‐factor model based on principles of diversity. We locate this research among the disciplines using science overlay mapping. Key term analyses, based on keywords and on natural language processing help profile the research emphases of these leading researchers. Such results could serve as leading indicators to help identify directions of future nanobio development.

Authorship and Content Analysis of Engineering Education Research: A Case Study

“…Similarly, other researchers suggest that citation and publication counts are obvious indicators of productive and creative scientists within a field [30][31][32]. These prolific researchers have more impact on the field, and the likelihood that these papers are selected as "creative work" is higher [33]. Another method for identifying the main researchers within a field is through peer evaluation [34].…”

“…However, bibliometrics-based methods are easier and more efficient, especially due to the availability of research databases such as Web of Science and Scopus. [33].…”

Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective

“…Compiling information about patent applicants such as inventors and assignees can provide information about dominant firms, technological proximity between firms (which can lead to partnerships as well as merger and acquisition possibilities) and the location of communities of practice (Breitzman and Mogee 2002;Breitzman 2005;Pei and Porter 2011). Concerning the geographical dimension, inventive activity often clusters in a region because of supply-side and demand-side benefits associated with geographical proximity (Krugman 1991;Porter 1998).…”

“…Two quantitative studies can be associated with nanobiosciences. The first is by Pei and Porter (2011) who use the relevant WOS subject categories to extract nanobioscience articles from a nano-dataset. In a similar fashion, Li et al (2007a) identify patent classes that can be potentially associated with nanomedicine, but these classes are not reserved for nanomedicine and could also contain patents for the nanobiotechnology sector.…”

A novel three-dimension perspective to explore technology evolution

“…In general, the most of the related literatures using such traditional methods as patent analysis, bibliometric analysis and analysis of technology life cycle maybe have several limitations or some extending space: (1) the comprehensive research methods or perspectives integrating patent analysis, bibliometric analysis and technological life cycle are very few, instead, these analysis methods are often used independently (Mogee 1991;Park et al 2012;Gao et al 2013;Roessner et al 2013); (2) in some traditional patent or bibliometric analysis, occasionally, quantitative methods are combined to enhance the ability of demonstration (Yoon and Park 2007;Pei and Porter 2011;Geum et al 2014;Jeong and Song 2014;Zhang et al 2014). However, in the field of indentifying evolutionary phases, quantitative methods are still very few, and cause that the decision-makers have to rely on their intuition; (3) Because the traditional theory of technology life cycle only present the descriptions of four evolutionary stages, cannot explain the motives or dynamic mechanism of technology evolution (Taylor and Taylor 2012;Lee and Berente 2013;Gao et al 2013), even if the stage positioning is accurate enough based on those qualitative methods, but how to formulate the related policies of innovation and industrialization, still lack sufficient basis and explanation.…”