通过ESI中科学家的Citations排序和CPP排序取交集选出数学、物理、化学、生物、地球科学5个理科学科代表性学者,基于Web of Science(WoS)查出这些学者的累积被引篇数P、被引次数C、篇均被引次数CPP和h指数。分析表明被引篇数P和被引次数...通过ESI中科学家的Citations排序和CPP排序取交集选出数学、物理、化学、生物、地球科学5个理科学科代表性学者,基于Web of Science(WoS)查出这些学者的累积被引篇数P、被引次数C、篇均被引次数CPP和h指数。分析表明被引篇数P和被引次数C与h指数都有一定相关性;计算表明所有理科学者的h指数落在Hirsch公式和Egghe-Rousseau公式估计值之间,Egghe-Rousseau公式估计值、Hirsch公式估计值和真实h指数之间存在Pearson相关性。展开更多
This paper aims to examine the heterogeneity of research production between China and the United States by disaggregating the national research production into its constituent components.Different from previous studie...This paper aims to examine the heterogeneity of research production between China and the United States by disaggregating the national research production into its constituent components.Different from previous studies,we introduce the share counting method to determine the number of publications attributed to each country.We analyse bibliographic metadata from over 36 million SCI/SSCI-indexed journal publications published in the period from 2000 to 2021.The research production of China and the United States is decomposed according to the document types,disciplines,and high-impact journals.In the quantitative analysis,the first finding is that China emerged as the world’s largest contributor to SCIindexed publications in 2019 under fractional counting,two years earlier than under whole counting.Surpassing the U.S.in publication count does not indicate a completely surpassing position for China in its scientific production strength,however.When it is divided by document types,China has published a smaller proportion of review-type journal publications than the U.S.;when filtered by disciplines,in the period from 2016 to 2021,China’s research production leads in only 100 of 178 natural science fields and 2of 58 social science fields.The second finding is,when only the number of papers on high-impact journals is considered,China also surpassed the U.S.in 2019;meanwhile,the proportion of high-impact journal papers of China is still lower than that of the U.S.These results reveal that there are different knowledge production patterns in China and the United States.This study contributes to a better understanding of the disparities in research productivity between the top two nations,and suggests several policy implications for China.展开更多
文摘通过ESI中科学家的Citations排序和CPP排序取交集选出数学、物理、化学、生物、地球科学5个理科学科代表性学者,基于Web of Science(WoS)查出这些学者的累积被引篇数P、被引次数C、篇均被引次数CPP和h指数。分析表明被引篇数P和被引次数C与h指数都有一定相关性;计算表明所有理科学者的h指数落在Hirsch公式和Egghe-Rousseau公式估计值之间,Egghe-Rousseau公式估计值、Hirsch公式估计值和真实h指数之间存在Pearson相关性。
基金supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China(72022021)
文摘This paper aims to examine the heterogeneity of research production between China and the United States by disaggregating the national research production into its constituent components.Different from previous studies,we introduce the share counting method to determine the number of publications attributed to each country.We analyse bibliographic metadata from over 36 million SCI/SSCI-indexed journal publications published in the period from 2000 to 2021.The research production of China and the United States is decomposed according to the document types,disciplines,and high-impact journals.In the quantitative analysis,the first finding is that China emerged as the world’s largest contributor to SCIindexed publications in 2019 under fractional counting,two years earlier than under whole counting.Surpassing the U.S.in publication count does not indicate a completely surpassing position for China in its scientific production strength,however.When it is divided by document types,China has published a smaller proportion of review-type journal publications than the U.S.;when filtered by disciplines,in the period from 2016 to 2021,China’s research production leads in only 100 of 178 natural science fields and 2of 58 social science fields.The second finding is,when only the number of papers on high-impact journals is considered,China also surpassed the U.S.in 2019;meanwhile,the proportion of high-impact journal papers of China is still lower than that of the U.S.These results reveal that there are different knowledge production patterns in China and the United States.This study contributes to a better understanding of the disparities in research productivity between the top two nations,and suggests several policy implications for China.
