Branding/Logomark minus Citation Combined Shape Icon/Bookmark-empty Icon/Copy Icon/Collection Icon/Close Copy 7 no author result Created with Sketch. Icon/Back Created with Sketch. Match!

Who are the international research collaboration partners for China? A novel data perspective based on NSFC grants

Published on Jul 1, 2018in Scientometrics 2.77
· DOI :10.1007/s11192-018-2753-3
Lili Yuan1
Estimated H-index: 1
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences),
Yanni Hao1
Estimated H-index: 1
(National Natural Science Foundation of China)
+ 3 AuthorsDengsheng Wu10
Estimated H-index: 10
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
Cite
Abstract
International research collaboration is vital to the success of scientific development of China, and the identification of collaboration partners is the basic unit of collaboration. While many researchers have investigated international research collaboration using publication data, grant data have rarely been used. This paper explores the international research collaboration partners of China from a new data perspective, based on grant data. Using data from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) joint grants between China and 75 countries from 2006 to 2016, this study examines the collaboration partners in three aspects: overall collaboration activity, relative research effort, and collaboration groups of countries. Some interesting results are obtained as follows. Among 75 partners, the top 15 account for 95.42% of the total grants, but they are quite uneven in collaborating grant numbers and shares. The USA ranks far ahead of the others with a share of 53.27%, but China maintained a steady, approximately average collaborative effort with it from 2006 to 2016. China shows a growing preference for collaborating with Australia, the Netherlands, and Spain, while the preferences for Japan, Germany, and Sweden are the opposite. The collaborative number of grants among five collaboration groups varies greatly because of different features of constituents’ countries. The G7 and Asia–Pacific both own more than 75% of all the grants, while the BRICS and “The Belt and Road” are relatively weak in research collaboration, but China has maintained a rising trend of collaboration with them over the past 11 years.
  • References (59)
  • Citations (2)
Cite
References59
Newest
Published on May 1, 2018in Journal of Informetrics 3.88
Dengsheng Wu10
Estimated H-index: 10
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences),
Jing Li1
Estimated H-index: 1
(Anda: Anhui University)
+ 1 AuthorsJianping LiXiaolei19
Estimated H-index: 19
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
Abstract Assessing the scholarly impact of academic institutions has become increasingly important. The achievements of editorial board members can create benchmarks for research excellence and can be used to evaluate both individual and institutional performance. This paper proposes a new method based on journal editor data for assessing an institution’s scholarly impact. In this paper, a journal editorship index (JEI) that simultaneously accounts for the journal rating (JR), editor title (ET),...
3 Citations Source Cite
Published on Mar 13, 2018in Journal of Data and Information Science
RonaldRousseau38
Estimated H-index: 38
5 Citations Source Cite
Published on Nov 1, 2017in Scientometrics 2.77
Lili Wang7
Estimated H-index: 7
(UM: Maastricht University),
Xianwen Wang11
Estimated H-index: 11
(DUT: Dalian University of Technology),
Niels Philipsen7
Estimated H-index: 7
Collaborations between China and the European Union (EU) member states involve not only connections between China and individual countries, but also interactions between the different EU member states, the latter of which is due also to the influence exerted by the EU’s integration strategy. The complex linkages between China and the EU28, as well as among the 28 EU member states, are of great importance for studying knowledge flows. Using co-authorship analysis, this study explores the changes ...
7 Citations Source Cite
Published on Nov 1, 2017in Scientometrics 2.77
Cui Zhang1
Estimated H-index: 1
(JNU: Jinan University),
Jing Guo1
Estimated H-index: 1
(JNU: Jinan University)
While there is considerable empirical evidence on the intensity of China’s international research collaboration, the determinants of this research collaboration have rarely been examined. Using data from Web of Science on all co-publications between China and 147 countries for the period 2008–2015, this paper examines the changing spatial patterns and determinants of China’s international research collaboration. Our empirical results, based on a gravity econometric model, show that the publicati...
3 Citations Source Cite
Published on Sep 1, 2017in Information Processing and Management 3.89
Jing Li1
Estimated H-index: 1
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences),
Dengsheng Wu10
Estimated H-index: 10
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
+ 1 AuthorsMinglu Li6
Estimated H-index: 6
(National Natural Science Foundation of China)
Abstract Periodically ranking institutional research productivity is necessary not only to understand the status of the development of related fields but also to identify gaps and take appropriate corrective steps. Many bibliometric indicators contribute to the assessment of institutional research productivity, but the appropriateness of the indicator and the relationships between different indicators are topics that have not been addressed. For this reason, an indicator framework for the rankin...
8 Citations Source Cite
Published on Oct 1, 2016in Scientometrics 2.77
Ugo Finardi7
Estimated H-index: 7
(National Research Council),
Andrea Buratti3
Estimated H-index: 3
(University of Urbino)
International scientific collaboration is strategic for the growth of a country, in particular for developing countries. Among these ones the five Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) have a relevant role, also because they are joined in an association to foster mutual development. The present article studies the network of international scientific collaborations existing around the five BRICS. It does so considering the number of coauthored scientific product having authorship ...
13 Citations Source Cite
Published on Jun 1, 2016in Nature 43.07
Wei Yang1
Estimated H-index: 1
12 Citations Source Cite
Published on Jan 1, 2016in Scientometrics 2.77
Lili Wang7
Estimated H-index: 7
In recent decades China has witnessed an impressive improvement in science and its scientific output has become the second largest in the world. From both quantitative and qualitative perspectives, this paper aims to explore China's comparative advantages in different academic disciplines. This paper employs two datasets: publications in all journals and publications in the top 5 % journals by discipline. With the former database we investigate the comparative advantages of each academic discipl...
17 Citations Source Cite
Published on Dec 1, 2015in Scientometrics 2.77
Ping Zhou16
Estimated H-index: 16
(ZJU: Zhejiang University),
Xiaozan Lv1
Estimated H-index: 1
(ZJU: Zhejiang University)
Based on publications indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) of Thomson Reuters, we explored China---Germany collaboration in physics from perspectives including publication profiles, collaboration effect, as well as active institutions and active fields. We found that German researchers are more capable of publishing higher-quality papers than Chinese counterparts. Both China and Germany get benefit from collaboration in raising publication productivity. The collaboration helps i...
7 Citations Source Cite
Published on Nov 1, 2015in Scientometrics 2.77
Dengsheng Wu10
Estimated H-index: 10
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences),
Minglu Li6
Estimated H-index: 6
(National Natural Science Foundation of China)
+ 2 AuthorsJianping LiXiaolei19
Estimated H-index: 19
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
Ranking research productivity of institutions periodically is of a great necessity nowadays, for that can not only help understand the latest development level of related fields but also contribute to finding gaps and quickly improve. In previous studies, the number of publications and further impact factors of journals is two widely used indexes to measure research productivity. However, impact factors do not always tally with a quality of the journal, which will lead to a bias of research prod...
10 Citations Source Cite
Cited By2
Newest
Published on Jul 13, 2019in Scientometrics 2.77
Xiuwen Chen2
Estimated H-index: 2
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences),
Jianping LiXiaolei19
Estimated H-index: 19
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
+ 1 AuthorsDengsheng Wu10
Estimated H-index: 10
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
From the initial idea, writing, submitting, and reviewing to the online presentation of a research paper takes a long time. The identified intellectual structure of a research paper may have a certain time lag. In view of this problem, scholars have suggested that research grants may be an alternative way to identify intellectual structure as early as possible. However, these comments are mentioned qualitatively. Few researchers have verified the research grant by early identification of the int...
Source Cite
Published on Nov 1, 2018in Journal of Informetrics 3.88
Dengsheng Wu (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences), Lili Yuan1
Estimated H-index: 1
(CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
+ 1 AuthorsJianping Li (CAS: Chinese Academy of Sciences)
Abstract The inequality in research funding is an important issue, in which the measurement of inequality is the basis. The literature has mostly investigated the inequality in research funding by providing overall values of inequality but has rarely explored this topic through the internal structure of the overall inequality. In this paper, a three-stage nested Theil index is employed to decompose the overall inequality in research funding into the between and within components. Moreover, a dec...
Source Cite