Measuring regional science networks in China: a comparison of international and domestic bibliographic data sources

Abstract

Bibliographic databases are frequently used and analysed for the purpose of assessing the capacity and performance of individual researchers or entire research systems. Many of the advantages and disadvantages are the subject of continued discussion in the relevant literature, although only rarely with respect to the regional dimension of scientific publication activity. The importance of the regional dimension of science is reflected in many theoretical concepts, ranging from innovation system theories to territorial cluster concepts and learning regions. This article makes use of the extensive information found in bibliographic data and assesses the reliability of this information as a proxy indicator for the spatial dimension of scientific collaboration in emerging economies. This is undertaken using the example of the emerging field of biotechnology in China from 2000 onwards. Two data sets have been prepared: (1) the frequently used ISI Web of Knowledge database (SCI-Expanded) and (2) the domestic Chinese Chongqing VIP database. Both data sources were analysed using a variety of bibliometric and network scientific methods. The structural and topological similarity of networks, built from coauthorship data, is apparent between the two databases. At an abstract level, general network forces are present, resulting in similar network sizes, clustering, or assortativity. However, introducing additional complexity through regional subdivision reveals many differences between the two data sources that must be accounted for in the analytic design of future scientometric research in dynamic spaces.

Spatial and temporal evolution of urban innovation network in China

“…The works have also resulted into various scientific papers (Hennemann, Wang, & Liefner, 2011;Hullmann & Meyer, 2003) and patents (Jaffe & Trajtenberg, 2002;Xiang et al, 2013).…”

“…With the help of theory and empirical researches conducted abroad, several scholars have begun to examine this issue in China using papers or patents. Taking specific areas, Hennemann et al (2011) have studied biotechnological knowledge networks between international and provinces. The findings of their research stress that Beijing is prominent in both the networks, while Hong Kong and Guangdong are more important in the international networks, and Shaanxi occupies a high position in the provincial networks.…”

The Geography of Chinese Science

“…Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the use of the SCI comes with the biases inherent in this type of data. For instance, Hennemann et al (2011) point out that there can be differences when using domestic bibliographic databases as opposed to international ones. However, given that science policy makers attach increasing value to the international visibility o f research, we believe that our focus on the rise of Chinese science as measured by SCI publication counts is justified (Jonkers, 2010, page 13).…”

Does the web of science accurately represent chinese scientific performance?

“…Moed () and Liang () have suggested using national Chinese bibliometric databases to assess Chinese research performance. Some researchers have combined WoS with national Chinese bibliometric databases and report many differences between the databases when investigating coauthorship networks (Hennemann et al, ), regional publications (Liang, ), as well as citation analysis (Meho & Yang, ). Taken as a whole, these results suggest that the WoS and national Chinese bibliometric databases tell different stories about Chinese research, although it is not clear how much they differ.…”

“…Many scholars have concluded that the WoS is not an appropriate tool to measure Chinese research performance (Guan & He, ; Jin & Rousseau, ; Zhou & Leydesdorff, ), as significant differences have been found in the coverage of international and national Chinese bibliometric databases (Hennemann, Wang, & Liefner, ; Meho & Yang, ). Although previous work has attempted to explain differences between WoS and Chinese bibliometric databases by looking at journal hierarchies and citation relations (Zhou & Leydesdorff, ), or regional publications (Liang, ), no research has yet analyzed the discrepancies at the level of authors.…”