The emergent dynamics of a technological research topic: the case of graphene

Technological research topics might enjoy dramatic increases in popularity, regardless of yet unclear commercialization prospects. The article analyzes the example of graphene, an advanced material, first demonstrated in 2004, which benefited from the visibility and expectations of policy makers, investors and R&D performers. The bibliometric analysis helps better understand the initial era of ferment in technology cycle, before graphene’s technical and commercial feasibility was confirmed. It offers insights into the underlying dynamics, which accompanies the topic’s emergence and the subsequent hype. Exponential growth in article counts is contrasted with decreasing citations per article and shares of highly-cited publications. The research field’s growing complexity is demonstrated by decomposing the discourse into publications concerning manufacturing graphene, its characterization and potential applications in non-electronics areas of health, environment and energy. Activities of publication outlets are traced, with a small number of journals accounting for the majority of publications and citations, and gradual increases in graphene’s presence in individual journals. International co-authorship patterns evolve over time, and while the network density and the average betweenness centrality of actors increase, the international concentration was found to follow a U-shaped pattern, initially promoting the field’s openness, but later making it less accessible, so that only some researchers benefit from this “window of opportunity”. The observed regularities follow a fashion-like pattern, with researchers joining the bandwagon to benefit from the topic’s popularity. The timing of entry into an emerging research field is important for maximizing the scientific impact of researchers, institutions, journals and countries.

[1]  Carlos Castillo-Chavez,et al.  Population modeling of the emergence and development of scientific fields , 2008, Scientometrics.

[2]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[3]  Y. Motoyama,et al.  Bibliometry and nanotechnology: A meta-analysis , 2011 .

[4]  H B Fell Fashion in Cell Biology. , 1960, Science.

[5]  Andrew J. Nelson,et al.  Do Innovation Measures Actually Measure Innovation? Obliteration, Symbolic Adoption, and Other Finicky Challenges in Tracking Innovation Diffusion , 2014 .

[6]  Diana Crane Fashion in Science: Does it Exist? , 1969 .

[7]  Isabel Gómez,et al.  Local, Domestic and International Scientific Collaboration in Biomedical Research , 1996, Scientometrics.

[8]  H. Small,et al.  Identifying emerging topics in science and technology , 2014 .

[9]  Douglas Henrique Milanez,et al.  Development of carbon-based nanomaterials indicators using the analytical tools and data provided by the web of science database , 2013 .

[10]  Luís M. A. Bettencourt,et al.  Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[11]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments , 1986 .

[12]  R. Ruoff,et al.  From conception to realization: an historial account of graphene and some perspectives for its future. , 2010, Angewandte Chemie.

[13]  Eric Abrahamson Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of Innovations , 1991 .

[14]  Jörn Altmann,et al.  Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[15]  Neil C. Ramiller,et al.  The Organizing Vision in Information Systems Innovation , 1997 .

[16]  Steffen Raub,et al.  The knowledge management tussle – speech communities and rhetorical strategies in the development of knowledge management , 2001, J. Inf. Technol..

[17]  William J. Abernathy,et al.  Patterns of Industrial Innovation , 1978 .

[18]  S. Arora,et al.  Early patterns of commercial activity in graphene , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[19]  Daniela Baglieri,et al.  Does the nano-patent 'Gold rush' lead to entrepreneurial-driven growth? Some policy lessons from China and Japan , 2014 .

[20]  Jane Calvert,et al.  What’s Special about Basic Research? , 2006 .

[21]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. , 1972 .

[22]  M. Pollitt,et al.  Electricity Sector Liberalisation and Innovation : An Analysis of the UK Patenting Activities , 2009 .

[23]  Jan L. Youtie,et al.  Entry strategies in an emerging technology: a pilot web-based study of graphene firms , 2013, Scientometrics.

[24]  Eldon Y. Li,et al.  Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective , 2013 .

[25]  P. Wallace The Band Theory of Graphite , 1947 .

[26]  K. Klincewicz Management fashions : turning bestselling ideas into objects and institutions , 2006 .

[27]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[28]  Jean-Christophe Doré,et al.  Structure of international collaboration in science: Typology of countries through multivariate techniques using a link indicator , 1992, Scientometrics.

[29]  Andre K. Geim,et al.  The rise of graphene. , 2007, Nature materials.

[30]  J. Rigby,et al.  Peering inside research networks: Some observations on the effect of the intensity of collaboration on the variability of research quality , 2005 .

[31]  Alfred Kieser,et al.  Von Spielen, Spielern und Spielleitern: Replik auf die Anmerkungen von Rolf Bühner, Erich Frese, Dieter Frey/Carsten Lüthgens, Jens-Martin Lohse, Oswald Neuberger und Christian Scholz zum Beitrag "Moden & Mythen des Organisierens" , 1996 .

[32]  R. Tijssen,et al.  Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe , 2010 .

[33]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[34]  Marko Seppänen,et al.  Patent and publishing activity sequence over a technology's life cycle , 2011 .

[35]  A. Kieser,et al.  Fashion in Organization Theory: An Empirical Analysis of the Diffusion of Theoretical Concepts , 2011 .

[36]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[37]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Characterizing the emergence of two nanotechnology topics using a contemporaneous global micro-model of science , 2014 .

[38]  Emile J.L. Chappin,et al.  Transition and transformation: A bibliometric analysis of two scientific networks researching socio-technical change , 2014 .

[39]  F. Munari,et al.  Running ahead in the nanotechnology gold rush. Strategic patenting in emerging technologies , 2014 .

[40]  吕鹏辉,et al.  Bibliometric trend analysis on global graphene research , 2011 .

[41]  W. Scott 'Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony', American Journal of Sociology, 83, pp. 340-63. , 2016 .

[42]  Oguz Gulseren,et al.  Functionalized carbon nanotubes and device applications , 2004 .

[43]  M. D. Gordon,et al.  A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication , 1980, Scientometrics.

[44]  Kumiko Miyazaki,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness of keyword search strategy for patent identification , 2013 .

[45]  Melissa A. Schilling Technological Lockout: An Integrative Model of the Economic and Strategic Factors Driving Technology Success and Failure , 1998 .

[46]  Daniel E. O'Leary,et al.  Gartner's hype cycle and information system research issues , 2008, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[47]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations , 2001, cond-mat/0104162.

[48]  Jos Benders,et al.  Hitch‐hiking on a hype: Dutch consultants engineering re‐engineering , 1998 .

[49]  Goio Etxebarria,et al.  Tendencies in scientific output on carbon nanotubes and graphene in global centers of excellence for nanotechnology , 2012, Scientometrics.

[50]  Eric Abrahamson,et al.  MANAGEMENT FASHION: LIFECYCLES, TRIGGERS, AND COLLECTIVE LEARNING PROCESSES. , 1997 .

[51]  Jaewoo Kang,et al.  Aggregative and stochastic model of main path identification: a case study on graphene , 2013, Scientometrics.

[52]  María Bordons,et al.  The influence of R&D intensity of countries on the impact of international collaborative research: evidence from Spain , 2014, Scientometrics.

[53]  Olle Persson,et al.  Studying research collaboration using co-authorships , 1996, Scientometrics.

[54]  J. S. Katz,et al.  What is research collaboration , 1997 .

[55]  Radhamany Sooryamoorthy,et al.  Do types of collaboration change citation? Collaboration and citation patterns of South African science publications , 2009, Scientometrics.

[56]  D. Krackhardt,et al.  The impact of network embeddedness on research output , 2013 .

[57]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  Innovation forecasting , 1997, Innovation in Technology Management. The Key to Global Leadership. PICMET '97.

[58]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[59]  Jonathan Adams,et al.  Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact , 2005, Scientometrics.

[60]  Jiancheng Guan,et al.  China's emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience ‘giants’ , 2007 .

[61]  R. Merton The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[62]  Andrei Mogoutov,et al.  Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking , 2007 .

[63]  Yue Chen,et al.  Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[64]  Andre K. Geim,et al.  Electric Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films , 2004, Science.

[65]  Vololona Rabeharisoa,et al.  The Management and Evaluation of Technological Programs and the Dynamics of Techno-economic networks , 1992 .

[66]  Robert J. W. Tijssen,et al.  Early stage identification of breakthroughs at the interface of science and technology: lessons drawn from a landmark publication , 2014, Scientometrics.

[67]  Tugrul U. Daim,et al.  Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis , 2006 .

[68]  J. Zabala‐Iturriagagoitia,et al.  Potential Applications of Carbon Nanotubes and Graphene: Marking the Direction of Scientific Research , 2013 .

[69]  Qing Liu,et al.  Bibliometric trend analysis on global graphene research , 2011, Scientometrics.

[70]  Martin J. Eppler,et al.  Gartner's Magic Quadrant and Hype Cycle , 2009 .

[71]  M. Jofre-Bonet,et al.  The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK , 2015 .

[72]  Álvaro Somoza,et al.  Synthesis and surface modification of uniform MFe2O4 (M = Fe, Mn, and Co) nanoparticles with tunable sizes and functionalities , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[73]  Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al.  Proliferation dynamics in new sciences , 2010 .

[74]  Albert A. Cannella,et al.  Social Capital and Knowledge Creation: Diminishing Returns of the Number and Strength of Exchange Relationships , 2004 .

[75]  A. Bonaccorsi Search Regimes and the Industrial Dynamics of Science , 2008 .

[76]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  Tech Mining: Exploiting New Technologies for Competitive Advantage , 2004 .

[77]  Rod Coombs,et al.  Technological change and company strategies : economic and sociological perspectives , 1992 .