Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Records from the Science Citation Index/ Social Science Citation Index (SCI) were analyzed to provide the infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature (prolific authors/ journals/ institutions/ countries, most cited authors/ papers/ journals) and the thematic structure (taxonomy) of the global nanotechnology literature, from a science perspective. Records from the Engineering Compendex (EC) were analyzed to provide a taxonomy from a technology perspective.• The Far Eastern countries have expanded nanotechnology publication output dramatically in the past decade.• The Peoples Republic of China ranks second to the USA (2004 results) in nanotechnology papers published in the Science Citation Index, and has increased its nanotechnology publication output by a factor of 21 in a decade.• Of the six most prolific (publications) countries in nanotechnology, the three from the Western group (USA, Germany, France) have about eight percent more publications (for 2004) than the three from the Far Eastern group (China, Japan, South Korea).• While most of the high nanotechnology publication-producing countries are also high nanotechnology patent producers in the US Patent Office (as of 2003), China is a major exception. China ranks 20th as a nanotechnology patent-producing country in the US Patent Office.

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Records from the Science Citation Index/ Social Science Citation Index (SCI) were analyzed to provide the infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature (prolific authors/ journals/ institutions/ countries, most cited authors/ papers/ journals) and the thematic structure (taxonomy) of the global nanotechnology literature, from a science perspective. Records from the Engineering Compendex (EC) were analyzed to provide a taxonomy from a technology perspective.• The Far Eastern countries have expanded nanotechnology publication output dramatically in the past decade.• The Peoples Republic of China ranks second to the USA (2004 results) in nanotechnology papers published in the Science Citation Index, and has increased its nanotechnology publication output by a factor of 21 in a decade.• Of the six most prolific (publications) countries in nanotechnology, the three from the Western group (USA, Germany, France) have about eight percent more publications (for 2004) than the three from the Far Eastern group (China, Japan, South Korea).• While most of the high nanotechnology publication-producing countries are also high nanotechnology patent producers in the US Patent Office (as of 2003), China is a major exception. China ranks 20th as a nanotechnology patent-producing country in the US Patent Office.

IntroductionDiscovery in science is the generation of novel, interesting, plausible, and intelligible knowledge about the objects of study. Literature-related discovery (LRD) is the linking of two or more concepts that have heretofore not been linked (i.e., disjoint), in order to produce new knowledge (i.e., potential discovery). Two major variants of LRD are: open discovery systems (ODS), where one starts with a problem and generates a potential solution (or vice versa), and closed discovery systems (CDS), where one starts with a problem and a potential solution and generates linking mechanism(s).This chapter reviews the state-of-the-art in ODS LRD only. It examines the major LRD concepts, evaluates each concept in detail from the perspective of discovery capability, and examines the level of potential discovery reported in the literature from each concept's implementation. In the evaluation of potential discovery claimed in the published literature, a vetting process is used that requires both characteristics of ODS LRD to be present in order for potential discovery to be affirmed: concepts are linked that have not been linked previously and novel, interesting, plausible, and intelligible knowledge is produced.The major conclusions are that, until recently, most of the reported ODS LRD techniques 5-3 have not generated discovery and this lack of discovery has hampered the growth of ODS LRD substantially. However, ODS LRD techniques have been developed that allow significantly greater amounts of potential discovery to be generated systematically.Discovery is ascertaining something previously unknown or unrecognized. More formally, "Discovery in science is the generation of novel, interesting, plausible, and intelligible knowledge about the objects of study" (Valdes-Perez, 1999, p. 336). It can result from uncovering previously unknown information, from synthesis of publicly available knowledge whose independent segments have never been combined, and/or through invention. In turn, the discovery could derive from logical exploitation of a knowledge base and/or from spontaneous creativity (e.g., Edisonian discoveries from trial and error) (Kostoff, 2003). Innovation reflects the metamorphosis from present practice to some new, ideally "better" practice. It can be based on existing non-implemented knowledge. It can follow discovery directly or resuscitate dormant discovery that has languished for decades.Literature-related discovery (LRD) is a systematic approach to bridging unconnected disciplines based on text mining procedures. LRD allows potentially radical discovery to be hypothesized using either the technical literature alone, or the literature and its authors.In the LRD context, discovery is linking two or more literature concepts that have heretofore not been linked (i.e., disjoint), in order to produce novel, interesting, plausible, and intelligible knowledge. Thus, simply linking two or more disparate concepts is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for LRD. In particular, concepts may be disjoint b...

No abstract