The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: a most recent update

The journal set which provides a representation of nanoscience and nanotechnology at the interfaces among applied physics, chemistry, and the life sciences is developing rapidly because of the introduction of new journals. The relevant contributions of nations can be expected to change according to the representations of the relevant interfaces among journal sets. In the 2005 set the position of the USA decreased more than in the 2004-set, while the EU-27 gained in terms of its percentage of world share of citations. The tag "Y01N" which was newly added to the EU classification system for patents, allows for the visualization of national profiles of nanotechnology in terms of relevant patents and patent classes

'Triad' or 'Tetrad'? On global changes in a dynamic world.

The US-EU race for world leadership in science and technology has become the favourite subject of recent studies. Studies issued by the European Commission reported the increase of the European share in the world's scientific production and announced world leadership of the EU in scientific output at the end of the last century. In order to be able to monitor those types of global changes, the present study is based on the 15-year period 1991-2005. A set of bibliometric and technometric indicators is used to analyse activity and impact patterns in science and technology output. This set comprises publication output indicators such as (1) the share in the world total, (2) subject-based publication profiles, (3) citation-based indicators like journal- and subject-normalised mean citation rates, (4) international co-publications and their impact as well as (5) patent indicators and publication-patent citation links (both directions). The evolution of national bibliometric profiles, 'scientific weight' and science-technology linkage patterns are discussed as well. The authors show, using the mirror of science and technology indicators, that the triad model does no longer hold in the 21st century. China is challenging the leading sciento-economic powers and the time is approaching when this country will represent the world's second largest potential in science and technology. China and other emerging scientific nations like South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil and Turkey are already changing the balance of power as measured by scientific production, as they are at least in part responsible for the relative decline of the former triad.Research; World; Science; Science-and-technology; Technology; Studies; Order; Indicators; Impact; Patterns; International; Patent; Linkage; Model; Power; Time; Country;

Does Size Matter? The Multipolar International Landscape of Nanoscience

How do different countries tackle nanoscience research? Are all countries similar except for a trivial size effect, as science is often assumed to be universal? Or does size dictate large differences, as large countries are able to develop activities in all directions of research, while small countries have to specialize in some specific niches? Alternatively, is size irrelevant, as all countries have followed different historical paths, leading to different patterns of specialisation? Here, we develop an original method that uses a bottom-up definition of scientific subfields to map the international structure of any scientific field. Our analysis shows that nanoscience research does not show a universal pattern of specialisation, homothetic of that of a single global leader (e.g., the United States). Instead, we find a multipolar world, with four main ways of doing nanosciences.Fil: Levin, Luciano Guillermo. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Humanas. Instituto de Estudios Sociohistóricos; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Jensen, Pablo. École normale supérieure de Lyon; FranciaFil: Kreimer, Pablo Rafael. Universidad Maimónides; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

Violence research in Northeast and Southeast Asia: main themes and directions

The study analyses research on violence in the Northeast and Southeast Asia with respect to four types: political, urban, domestic and youth violence, highlighting current research themes, tendencies and gaps in violence research on and in the region, and identifying needs for further research. Commonalities and differences between countries and subregions are examined, along with a treatment of the colonial experience that influenced political violence in postcolonial countries