China’s emerging centrality in the contemporary international scientific collaboration network

Zhang, Zhihui; Rollins, Jason; Lipitakis, Evangelia

doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2788-5

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following other research on large author collaboration networks (Newman 2001b(Newman , 2004Zhang et al 2018;Mryglod et al 2016) we use five-year publication periods to standardize comparisons. We separated articles based on year of publication into four periods: T1 (1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000), T2 (2001-2005), T3 (2006-2010) and T4 (2011-2015).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When disasters strike environmental science: a case–control study of changes in scientific collaboration networks

Rotolo

Frickel

2019

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of scientific collaboration networks reveal the social structure of scientific disciplines. Most of these studies assume scientists work under conditions of institutional stability. What happens to science when disaster strikes and research practice is disrupted? This study examines structural changes in a scientific collaboration network after serial exposure to major disasters. We analyze the collaboration network of wetlands scientists publishing research related to the marshes of the Louisiana Gulf Coast between 1996 and 2015, along with a control network from a wetlands setting in a different geographic area that did not experience any disasters over the same time span. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (2005) and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (2010) offer the opportunity to compare the Gulf wetlands collaboration network before and after the disasters. Results indicate changes in size, research activity, and connectivity in periods following the major hurricanes and oil spill.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When disasters strike environmental science: a case–control study of changes in scientific collaboration networks

Rotolo

Frickel

2019

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Often national science systems are modelled as single nodes despite the high level of aggregation across diverse networks that is entailed. Working with Web of Science data, Zhang et al ( 2018 ) find that ‘the centrality of the US is much higher than that of all countries studied’ (p. 1079). In relation to China, comparing 2001–2005, 2006–2010 and 2011–2015, the authors highlight ‘China’s sharp increase in prominence’ in international collaboration (p. 1075).…”

Section: National/global Synergy In Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

‘All things are in flux’: China in global science

Marginson

2021

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1990, a large and dynamic global science system has evolved, based on grass roots collaboration, and resting on the resources, infrastructure and personnel housed by national science systems. Euro-American science systems have become intensively networked in a global duopoly; and many other countries have built national science systems, including a group of large- and middle-sized countries that follow semi-autonomous trajectories based on state investment, intensive national network building, and international engagement, without integrating tightly into the global duopoly. The dual global/national approach pursued by these systems, including China, South Korea, Iran and India, is not always fully understood in papers on science. Nevertheless, China is now the number two science country in the world, the largest producer of papers and number one in parts of STEM physical sciences. The paper investigates the remarkable evolution of China’s science funding, output, discipline balance, internationalisation strategy and national and global networking. China has combined global activity and the local/national building of science in positive sum manner, on the ground of the nationally nested science system. The paper also discusses limits of the achievement, noting that while China-US relations have been instrumental in building science, a partial decoupling is occurring and the future is unclear.

show abstract

“…Social network analyses of nation-to-nation patterns of collaboration find that scientists in China, Japan and South Korea, and also in India and Brazil, have lower global 'centrality' in the technical sense than Euro-American science (e.g. Zhang, Rollins, and Lipitakis 2018). Graf and Kalthaus (2018) imply that this lesser international connectedness, combined with the rapid growth of national co-authorship, means that quality is lower than in the duopoly countries: 'Asian countries … do not fully exploit their knowledge sourcing potentials' (12).…”

Section: Rise Of Chinese Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Global science and national comparisons: beyond bibliometrics and scientometrics

Marginson

2021

Comparative Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last three decades, a networked global system has emerged in the natural-science-based disciplines, sustained by collegial epistemic relations in universities. Nationally ordered and funded science has expanded alongside the global science system. The common global pool of papers, defined by bibliometric collections, nevertheless excludes large components of knowledge. In the global system, four tendencies are apparent:(1) rapid growth of papers, (2) diversification of scientific capacity to many more countries, (3) expansion of networked international and national collaboration as measured by co-authorship, (4) growing multi-polarity of capacity, outputs and quality, with the rise of China and several middle-sized national systems outside the Euro-American bloc. The paper critiques the interpretation of global science dominant in scientometrics, in which positivist data analyses are applied to performative national comparisons. It argues for a historical-synthetic explanation of the global system that combines data and theorisation, and accounts for relations of power.

show abstract

China’s emerging centrality in the contemporary international scientific collaboration network

Cited by 24 publications

References 21 publications

When disasters strike environmental science: a case–control study of changes in scientific collaboration networks

When disasters strike environmental science: a case–control study of changes in scientific collaboration networks

‘All things are in flux’: China in global science

Global science and national comparisons: beyond bibliometrics and scientometrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About