Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Chinese Scholars in China and Overseas:Comparative Analysis on Research Productivity and Impact


Affiliations
1 East China Normal University, Room 323, Building of Law and Business, East China Normal University, 500 Dongchuanrd, Minhang, Shanghai 200241, China
2 Zhejiang Provincial Institute of Communications Planning, Design and Research, 89 Huancheng West Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310006, China
3 School of Information Management, Wuhan University, 299 Bayi Road, Wuhan 430072, China
 

The present article addresses the differences in research productivity and impact between Chinese scholars in China and overseas. A total of 1190 Chinese scholars in China and 1983 Chinese scholars overseas were recognized out of 6306 papers in six journals over 10 years. Research performance was evaluated by informetric indicators, including the absolute value, proportion, and average number of authors, publications, citations, and usage counts. Statistics metrics, including standard deviation and coefficient of variance, were used to test the viability of two groups. These metrics conclude that: (1) in general, Chinese scholars in China have fewer advantages than Chinese scholars overseas on all indicators; (2) Chinese scholars in China have more research potentiality than other scholars due to the faster speed of metrics’ growth; and (3) Chinese scientific research in China is more developed and better at science than social science. Additionally, Chinese scholars in China have a slightly stronger impact in most research areas than Chinese scholars overseas.

Keywords

Chinese Scholar, Research Productivity, Research Impact, Scientific Communication, Usage Metrics.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Hao, J., Wen, W. and Welch, A., When sojourners return: Employment opportunities and challenges facing high-skilled Chinese returnees. Asian Pac. Migr. J., 2016, 25, 22–40.

  • Zou, Y. and Laubichler, M. D., Measuring the contributions of Chinese scholars to the research field of systems biology from 2005 to 2013. Scientometrics, 2017, 110, 1615–1631.

  • Zong, F. and Wang, L., Evaluation of university scientific research ability based on the output of sci-tech papers: a D-AHP approach. PLoS ONE, 2017, 12, e0171437.

  • Yang, S. and Wang, F., Visualizing information science: author direct citation analysis in China and around the world. J. Informetr., 2015, 9, 208–225.

  • Radicchi, F. and Castellano, C., Analysis of bibliometric indicators for individual scholars in a large data set. Scientometrics, 2013, 97, 627–637.

  • Radicchi, F. and Castellano, C., A reverse engineering approach to the suppression of citation biases reveals universal properties of citation distributions. PLoS ONE, 2012, 7, e33833.

  • Bornmann, L., Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. J. Informetr., 2014, 8, 895–903.

  • Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P. and Neylon, C., Alt-metrics: a manifesto. 2010, pp. 1–5; doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291.

  • Wang, X., Fang, Z. and Sun, X., Usage patterns of scholarly articles on Web of Science: a study on Web of Science usage count. Scientometrics, 2016, 109, 917–926.

  • Moed, H. F., Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2005, 56, 1088–1097.

  • Zhou, P. and Leydesdorff, L., The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Res. Policy, 2006, 35, 83–104.

  • Liu, W., Hu, G., Tang, L. and Wang, Y., China’s global growth in social science research: uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013). J. Informetr., 2015, 9, 555–569.

  • Zhu, Q. L. and Willett, P., Bibliometric analysis of Chinese superconductivity research, 1986–2007. Aslib Proc., 2011, 63, 101–119.

  • Wong, C. Y. and Goh, K. L., The sustainability of functionality development of science and technology: Papers and patents of emerging economies. J. Informetr., 2012, 6, 55–65.

  • Larsen, P. O., Maye, I. and Ins, M. von, Scientific iutput and impact: relative positions of China, Europe, India, Japan and the USA. Collnet J. Scientometer. Inf. Manage., 2008, 2, 1–10.

  • Walsh, J. P., The impact of foreign-born scientists and engineers on American nanoscience research. Sci. Public Policy, 2015, 42, 107–120.

  • Lee, S., Foreign-born scientists in the United States-do they perform differently than native-born scientists? Ph D thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004, vol. 36, pp. 27–30.

  • Veugelers, R., Towards a multipolar science world: trends and impact. Scientometrics, 2010, 82, 439–456.


Abstract Views: 408

PDF Views: 129




  • Chinese Scholars in China and Overseas:Comparative Analysis on Research Productivity and Impact

Abstract Views: 408  |  PDF Views: 129

Authors

Wen Lou
East China Normal University, Room 323, Building of Law and Business, East China Normal University, 500 Dongchuanrd, Minhang, Shanghai 200241, China
Hui Wang
Zhejiang Provincial Institute of Communications Planning, Design and Research, 89 Huancheng West Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310006, China
Siluo Yang
School of Information Management, Wuhan University, 299 Bayi Road, Wuhan 430072, China

Abstract


The present article addresses the differences in research productivity and impact between Chinese scholars in China and overseas. A total of 1190 Chinese scholars in China and 1983 Chinese scholars overseas were recognized out of 6306 papers in six journals over 10 years. Research performance was evaluated by informetric indicators, including the absolute value, proportion, and average number of authors, publications, citations, and usage counts. Statistics metrics, including standard deviation and coefficient of variance, were used to test the viability of two groups. These metrics conclude that: (1) in general, Chinese scholars in China have fewer advantages than Chinese scholars overseas on all indicators; (2) Chinese scholars in China have more research potentiality than other scholars due to the faster speed of metrics’ growth; and (3) Chinese scientific research in China is more developed and better at science than social science. Additionally, Chinese scholars in China have a slightly stronger impact in most research areas than Chinese scholars overseas.

Keywords


Chinese Scholar, Research Productivity, Research Impact, Scientific Communication, Usage Metrics.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv115%2Fi1%2F49-55