材料领域科研项目的投入产出特征分析

以材料领域的国家自然科学基金项目为例,通过对科研项目的经费投入、论文发表数量、论文影响力、论文产出周期等指标进行科学计量分析,分别从年度趋势、领域变化和地区差异3个维度揭示了材料领域科研投入产出的特征和一般规律.分析结果表明,我国科研基金资助的材料领域的研究水平随时间推移呈上升趋势,但在地域分布上并不均衡.科研项目的组织实施加强了材料领域与其他学科领域的渗透融合.项目经费的规模与论文产出数量基本符合正相关的规律,但与论文平均影响力没有直接的关系.     

自然科学基金材料领域项目承担单位情况及地区分布研究

从自然科学基金委成立以来近24年的资助项目中提取材料相关项目,用自然分类法、赫芬达尔指数等分类统计方法统计分析了材料领域项目承担单位和地区分布情况。得出的结论是,2000年以来,自然科学基金材料领域无论项目数还是资助金额都增长迅速。北京增长最快,优势明显,地区分布整体不平衡性有所缓解,但反映出的研究能力和资源分布的不均衡依然存在;资助对象上,近年来对省属高校的支持有所提高,研究院所所占的份额则呈现出下降的趋势。     

《材料科学与工程学报》投稿指南

<正>一、范围及内容《材料科学与工程学报》是由国家教育部主管,浙江大学主办的材料领域学术性中文科技期刊(双月刊)。本刊主要刊登材料科学与工程科学研究领域的评述论文、研究论文和研究简报。除评述论文外,本刊也欢迎用英文撰写的论文,一经录用,将优先刊登。评述论文是指关于某个专题国内外研究现状与进展情况的综合评论性论文,长度一般不超过8印刷页(约16000宇,含标题、图表、参考文献、空格等,下同)。评述论文的撰写者必须是正在从事该方面研究工作的专家,内容应包括作者对本人及所在课题组的相关研究工作的评述。引用的参考文献数量以30~50篇为宜,除个别有关科学史方面     

1986—2009年度自然科学基金材料类项目分析

材料是人类生存和生活必不可缺少的部分,材料科学的研究是国家各科技计划资助的重要领域之一。本文对1986-2009年度自然科学基金资助的材料科学研究项目信息进行了收集、整理,对项目的年度分布、类型分布、地区分布、机构分布、人员分布等进行了统计分析,最后对分析的结果进行了归纳总结。     

征稿简则

1．《材料研究学报》报道金属材料、无机非金属材料、有机高分子材料、复合材料以及材料科学的边缘学科、交叉学科的最新研究成果,特别是国家自然科学基金和各类国家基金资助项目的研究成果,刊登国内外具有较高创新性和学术水平的关于材料,特别是高新材料的成份、组成和结构与性能的关系的研究论文和评述论文。稿件一定要创新性强、学术观点明确、数据可靠、文字流畅。     

《材料科学与工程学报》投稿指南

一、范围及内容《材料科学与工程学报》是由国家教育部主管,浙江大学主办的材料领域学术性中文科技期刊(双月刊)。本刊主要刊登材料科学与工程科学研究领域的评述论文、研究论文和研究简报。除评述论文外,本刊也欢迎用英文撰写的论文,一经录用,将优先刊登。评述论文是指关于某个专题国内外研究现状与进展情况的综合评论性论文,长度一般不超过8印刷页(约16000宇,含标题、图表、参考文献、空格等,下同)。评述论文的撰写者必须是正在从事该方面研究工作的专家,内容应包括作者对本人及所在课题组的相关研究工作的评述。引用的参考文献数量以30~50篇为宜,除个别有关科学史方面     

核心期刊《工程力学》引文、作者及基金论文定量分析

运用文献计量学的方法,通过对全国中文核心期刊——《工程力学》近10年(1994~2004年6月)所发论文引文(包括引文的数量,语种,类型分布),作者(包括作者的系统、地区、合作类型分布)及基金论文(包括基金论文的数量, 获基金资助的数量,资助机构分布)的定量分析,客观揭示该刊在我国学术界的整体水平及重要影响。     

2001-2011年度国家自然科学基金“储氢”领域资助情况分析

从资助数量、资助单位类型、资助基金类型、资助学部与资助内容等方面分析了2001-2011年度国家自然科学基金“储氢”领域资助情况,并对资助情况作了总结和分析.     

《材料科学与工程学报》投稿指南

正一、范围及内容《材料科学与工程学报》是由国家教育部主管,浙江大学主办的材料领域学术性中文科技期刊(双月刊)。本刊主要刊登材料科学与工程科学研究领域的评述论文、研究论文和研究简报。除评述论文外,本刊也欢迎用英文撰写的论文,一经录用,将优先刊登。评述论文是指关于某个专题国内外研究现状与进展情况的综合评论性论文,长度一般不超过8印刷页(约16000宇,含标题、图表、参考文献、空格等,下同)。评述论文的撰写者必须是正在从事该方面研究工作的专家,内容应包括作者对本人及所在课题组的相关研究工作的评述。引用的参考文献数量以30～50篇为宜,除个别有关科学史方面的评述论文以外,参考文献应以近五年发表的论文为主。本刊不发表     

《材料科学与工程学报》投稿指南

正一、范围及内容《材料科学与工程学报》是由国家教育部主管,浙江大学主办的材料领域学术性中文科技期刊(双月刊)。本刊主要刊登材料科学与工程科学研究领域的评述论文、研究论文和研究简报。除评述论文外,本刊也欢迎用英文撰写的论文,一经录用,将优先刊登。评述论文是指关于某个专题国内外研究现状与进展情况的综合评论性论文,长度一般不超过8印刷页(约16000宇,含标题、图表、参考文献、空格等,下同)。评述论文的撰写者必须是正在从事该方面研究工作的专家,内容应包括作者对本人及所在课题组的相关研究工作的评述。引用的参考文献数量以30~50篇为宜,除个别有关科学史方面的评述论文以外,参考文献应以近五年发表的论文为主。本刊不发表     

Citation regression analysis of computer science publications in different ranking categories and subfields

A number of bibliometric studies point out that the role of conference publications in computer science differs from that in other traditional fields. Thus, it is interesting to identify the relative status of journal and conference publications in different subfields of computer science based on the citation rates categorised by the China Computer Federation (CCF) classifications and venue types. In this research, we construct a dataset containing over 100,000 papers recommended by the CCF catalogue and their citation information. We also investigate some other factors that often influence a paper’s citation rate. An experimental study shows that the relative status of journals and conferences varies greatly in different subfields of computer science, and the impact of different publication levels varies according to the citation rate. We also verify that the classification of a publication, number of authors, maximum h-index of all authors of a paper, and average number of papers published by a publication have different effects on the citation rate, although the citation rate may have a different degree of correlation with these factors.     

Measuring the use of public research in firm R&D in the Hsinchu Science Park

Knowledge flow between public and private sectors is widely recognized as a way to stimulate innovation and regional development, particularly in science parks. This work employs a bibliometric approach, based on patent citation, non-patent citation, and public?Cprivate co-authorship of scientific publications to measure the use of public research in Hsinchu Science Park (HSP) in Taiwan. The result shows that the number of jointly published papers has increased constantly, implying the collaboration between HSP and universities has become more common. However, from the aspect of co-patenting, patent citation, and non-patent reference, technological innovation stemming from public research needs to be enhanced.     

Characteristics of research in China assessed with Essential Science Indicators

To provide an overview of the characteristics of research in China, a bibliometric evaluation of highly cited papers with high-level representation was conducted during the period from 1999 to 2009 based on the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) database. A comprehensive assessment covered overall performance, journals, subject categories, internationally collaborative countries, national inter-institutionally collaborative institutions, and most-cited papers in 22 scientific fields. China saw a strong growth in scientific publications in the last decade, to some extent due to increasing research and development expenditure. China has been more active in ESI fields of chemistry and physics, but more excellent in materials science, engineering and mathematics. Most publications were concerned with the common Science Citation Index subject categories of multidisciplinary chemistry, multidisciplinary materials and science, and physical chemistry. About one half China’s ESC papers were internationally collaborative and the eight major industrialized countries (the USA, Germany, the UK, Japan, France, Canada, Russia, and Italy) played a prominent role in scientific collaboration with China, especially the USA. The Chinese Academy of Sciences took the leading position of institutions with many branches. The “985 Project” stimulated the most productive institutions for academic research with a huge funding injection and the universities in Hong Kong showed good scientific performance. The citation impact of internationally collaborative papers differed among fields and international collaborations made positive contributions to academic research in China.     

Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research

The following kinds of data were collected on three samples of cancer research literature representing three levels of quality: (1) collaboration as measured by the number of authors per paper, (2) quantitative productivity of countries, (3) diachronous citations covering the first five years of publication, (4) total self-citations, (5) proportions of self-citations made by first-named authors, and (6) the extent of dispersion of articles among journals. Analyses showed that as the number of authors per paper increases, the proportion of high quality papers also increases and the Collaborative Index can be used to measure quality in the aggregate. It was found that the quantity and quality of cancer research done in a country are positively related. All analyses of the citation data confirmed the hypotheses that highly rated papers are significantly more highly cited than average papers and the rates of uncitedness decline with quality. The proportion of self-citations to total citations decreases with increasing quality and, on average, first-named authors of quality papers cite them proportionally fewer times than first-named authors of run-of-the mill papers do. This study also shows that, as quality increases, the extent of literature scatter or dispersion increases.     

A longitudinal analysis of citation distribution breadth for Chinese scholars

Over the past 30 years, the research behavior of Chinese scholars has continually evolved. This paper studied the citing behavior of Chinese scholars by employing three indicators of citation concentration from the perspective of citation breadth analysis. All the citations from 2,338,033 papers from the Chinese Citation Database (1979–2008) covering four disciplines—Chemistry; Clinical Medicine; Library, Information and Archival Science; and Chinese Literature and World Literature—were analyzed. Empirical results show a general weakening tendency towards citation concentration: (1) decreasing percentage of uncited published papers within a given year; (2) a higher percentage of papers required to account for the same proportion of citation than before; and (3) the steady decline in the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) of citation distribution. All three measures indicate a decline in citing concentration or an increase in citation breadth. This phenomenon may be the result of increased access to materials, perhaps because of the ease with which scholarly materials can be accessed through the Internet.     

Nalimov and the Polish Way Towards Science of Science

Nalimov's relations with Polish scientists date from the sixties. He was present in Polish science owing to his publication — also specially prepared for Polish journals — and for his participation in Polish-Soviet science of science conferences organized alternately in Poland and in (of that time) Soviet Union. He had a high opinion — which he many times expressed — on contemporary condition of Polish science of science as well as on its previous achievements. In such opinion he was not isolated; also John Bernal and Derek de Solla Price referred in their papers to precursory statements of Maria and Stanisław Ossowski formulating already in the thirties of XX century progressive programme for science of science research. Ten years earlier a similar views upon science presented world-famous Polish sociologist Florian Znaniecki. So, in the first part of the paper a common way of thinking and approaching science of science basic problems in Ossowski's, Znaniecki's and Nalimov's works is presented. In the second part the direct contacts of Nalimov with Polish science of science researchers widely described and commentated in Polish journals are discussed. At least using citation analysis the influence of Nalimov's ideas on science of science and scientometrics in Poland is presented. As a base to citation analysis the journal Problems of the Science of Science (1965–1999) and monographs devoted to scientometrics, bibliometrics and informetrics were taken. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Scientometrics of laser research in India and China

An analysis of 1223 papers published by India (347papers) and China (876papers) at conferences and in journals during 1993 and 1997 in the field of laser S&T indicates that China"s output was twice to that of India. However, Activity Indices for both the countries in 1993 and 1997 were almost the same. Chinese scientists preferred to publish in domestic journals, while Indian scientists published in foreign journals. The number of papers by Indian scientists in SCI covered journals and journals with high-Normalized Impact Factors was more than for China, and, thus India was better connected to the mainstream science compared to China. The impact made by Indian papers was more than for Chinese papers, as reflected by normalized impact per paper, proportion of papers in high quality journals, and publication effective index. Indian papers also got more citations per paper than Chinese papers. Team research appears to be better in China than in India, as reflected by the number of mega-authored papers produced by the two countries. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Papers written by Nobel Prize winners in physics before they won the prize: an analysis of their language and journal of publication

In this paper, we analyzed data relating to the language of papers written by winners of Nobel Prizes in physics before they won the prize and their journals of publication, and we identified the change in scientific language corresponding with shifts of the center of the scientific world. Using the science citation index as the main data source, we also collected information on the distribution of prize-winning scientists by country, by each scientist’s number of published papers, and by language. We then analyzed their papers in terms of the different journals based in different countries. The results are presented in three parts: (1) the main languages used in the papers are English and German. The proportion of papers in English is gradually increasing, while that of papers in German is decreasing. (2) The prize winning scientists’ papers have been published mainly in journals in their own nation and in the United States. (3) Journals based in their own countries are very helpful to these scientists early in their careers.     

Fish science research in China: How does it compare with fish research in India?

Fish and aquaculture research in the People's Republic of China over the six years 1994-1999 has been mapped using data from six databases– three abstracting services and three citation indexes. The results are compared with fish science research in India. During the six years China has published 2035 papers (roughly 4.5 –5% of the world output) and India 2454. More than 95% of China's papers are journal articles, compared to 82.8% of Indian papers. About 78% of China's journal paper output has appeared in 143 domestic journals compared to 70% from India in 113 Indian journals. Less than one-eighth of the journal articles published by Chinese researchers are published in journals indexed in SCI, compared to 30% of journal articles by Indian researchers. Less than a dozen papers from each of these countries have appeared in journals of impact factor greater than 3.0. Fish research institutes and fishery colleges are the major contributors of the Chinese research output in this area. In India academic institutions are the leading contributors (61%), followed by central government institutions (>25%). Qingdao, Wuhan, Beijing and Shanghai are the cities and Shandong, Hubei and Fujian are the provinces contributing a large number of papers. As we do not have addresses of all authors in most of the papers, we are unable to estimate the extent of international collaboration. Although China's research output and its citation impact are less than those of India, China's fish production and export earnings are far higher than those of India. Probably China is better at bridging the gap between knowhow (research) and do-how (technology and creation of employment and wealth). China is pretty strong in extension. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The power law relationship between citation impact and multi-authorship patterns in articles in Information Science &amp; Library Science journals

The aim of this paper is to extend the conversation about the correlation between collaboration and citation impact in articles in Information Science & Library Science journals by analyzing this correlation’s behavior using a power scaling law approach. 28,131 articles that received 215,693 citations were analyzed. The number of these articles that were published through collaboration accounts for 69%. In general, the scaling exponent of multi-authored articles, both international and domestic, increases over time while the exponent of single-authored papers decreases. The citation impact and collaboration patterns exhibit a power law correlation with a scaling exponent of 1.34 ± 0.02. Citations to multi-authored articles increased \(2^{1.34}\) or 2.53 times each time the number of multi-authored papers doubled. The Matthew Effect is stronger for multi-authored papers than for single-authored. The scaling exponent for the power law relationship of domestic multi-authored papers was 1.35 ± 0.02. The citations to domestic multi-authored articles increased \(2^{1.35}\) or 2.55 times each time the number of domestic multi-authored articles doubled. Contrary to previous studies we found that the Matthew Effect is stronger for domestic multi-authored papers than for international multi-authored ones.