Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009

This paper analyses the growth pattern of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology literature in India during 1990–2009 (20 years). The Scopus international multidisciplinary bibliographical database has been used to identify the Indian contributions on the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The study measures the performance based on several parameters, country annual growth rate, authorship pattern, collaborative index, collaborative coefficient, modified collaborative coefficient, subject profile, etc. Further the study examines national publication output and impact in terms of average citations per paper, international collaboration output and share, contribution and impact of Indian Institutions and impact of Indian journals.

[1]  L. Egghe,et al.  Theory and practise of the g-index , 2006, Scientometrics.

[2]  Jean Tague-Sutcliffe,et al.  Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research , 1988, Scientometrics.

[3]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis , 2007, Scientometrics.

[4]  Michael A. Wilson,et al.  Nanotechnology: Basic Science and Emerging Technologies , 2002 .

[5]  Jesse A. Stump,et al.  The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature , 2006 .

[6]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: An application to nanosciences , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..

[7]  D. Parr,et al.  Will nanotechnology make the world a better place? , 2005, Trends in biotechnology.

[8]  R. Srikanth,et al.  Modified collaborative coefficient: a new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration , 2010, Scientometrics.

[9]  K. Subramanyam,et al.  Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review , 1983 .

[10]  Vijai Kumar,et al.  Research Trends in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in India , 2010 .

[11]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[12]  Gangan Prathap,et al.  The 100 most prolific economists using the p-index , 2010, Scientometrics.

[13]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  Do Patents Reflect the Useful Research Output of Universities , 1998 .

[14]  A. R. Rajeswari.  Indian patent statistics—An analysis , 2005, Scientometrics.

[15]  J. Gilman,et al.  Nanotechnology , 2001 .

[16]  Stephen M. Lawani,et al.  Quality, Collaboration and citations in cancer Research: a bibliometric Study , 1980 .

[17]  K. C. Garg,et al.  Scientometrics of institutional productivity of laser science and technology , 2007, Scientometrics.

[18]  Michael Schreiber,et al.  The influence of self-citation corrections on Egghe’s g index , 2007, Scientometrics.

[19]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents , 2007, Scientometrics.

[20]  Yoshiyuki Takeda,et al.  Nanobiotechnology as an emerging research domain from nanotechnology: A bibliometric approach , 2009, Scientometrics.

[21]  M. Meyer,et al.  Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application , 1998, Scientometrics.

[22]  Tibor Braun,et al.  Nanoscience and nanotecnology on the balance , 1997, Scientometrics.

[23]  Gangan Prathap,et al.  Ranking of Indian engineering and technological institutes for their research performance during 1999-2008 , 2009 .

[24]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Publications and patents in nanotechnology , 2003, Scientometrics.

[25]  Joachim Schummer.  The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: A bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy , 2007, Scientometrics.

[26]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Patent Citations in a Novel Field of Technology — What Can They Tell about Interactions between Emerging Communities of Science and Technology? , 2000, Scientometrics.

[27]  MU-HSUAN HUANG,et al.  Constructing a patent citation map using bibliographic coupling: A study of Taiwan's high-tech companies , 2003, Scientometrics.

[28]  K. C. Garg,et al.  Scientometrics of laser research literature as viewed through the Journal of Current Laser Abstracts , 1999, Scientometrics.

[29]  Laura I. Schultz,et al.  Methods for identifying emerging General Purpose Technologies: a case study of nanotechnologies , 2010, Scientometrics.

[30]  Catherine A. Larson,et al.  Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia, and India , 2009, Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology.

[31]  Martin S. Meyer,et al.  Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology:An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology , 2001, Scientometrics.

[32]  K. C. Garg,et al.  Bibliometrics of global malaria vaccine research. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[33]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update , 2008, Scientometrics.

[34]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  A longitudinal analysis of nanotechnology literature: 1976–2004 , 2008 .

[35]  Sujit Bhattacharya,et al.  Using patent statistics as a measure of 'technological assertiveness': A China-India comparison , 2002 .

[36]  Ronald N. Kostoff,et al.  Global nanotechnology research metrics , 2007, Scientometrics.

[37]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  hg-index: a new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g-indices , 2010, Scientometrics.

[38]  Martin Meyer,et al.  What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations , 2000, Scientometrics.

[39]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Domain Study 'Nanotechnology: Analysis of an Emerging Domain of Scientific and Technological Endeavour' , 2003 .

[40]  Zan Huang,et al.  International nanotechnology development in 2003: Country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database , 2004 .

[41]  Masatsura Igami,et al.  Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications , 2008, Scientometrics.

[42]  Joachim Schummer,et al.  Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology , 2004, Scientometrics.

[43]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level , 2008, Scientometrics.

[44]  Angela Hullmann,et al.  Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology , 2007, Scientometrics.

[45]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Mapping Nanotechnology Innovations and Knowledge: Global and Longitudinal Patent and Literature Analysis , 2008 .

[46]  Martin Meyer,et al.  What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency , 2007, Scientometrics.

[47]  Moin Ahmad,et al.  CITATION MAPPING OF PUBLISHED LITERATURE ON EMBELIA RIBES , 2005 .

[48]  M. Meyer.  Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature , 2000 .

[49]  A. Franks.  REVIEW ARTICLE: Nanotechnology , 1987 .

[50]  Rekha Menon,et al.  Child Nutrition, Child Health, and School Enrollment: A Longitudinal Analysis , 1997 .

[51]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  The h-index and its alternatives: An application to the 100 most prolific economists , 2009, Scientometrics.

[52]  P. S. Nagpaul.  Contribution of Indian universities to the mainstream scientific literature: A bibliometric assessment , 2005, Scientometrics.

[53]  Anastassios Pouris.  Nanoscale research in South Africa: A mapping exercise based on scientometrics , 2007, Scientometrics.

[54]  Jingjing Zhang,et al.  Language trends in nanoscience and technology: The case of Chinese-language publications , 2007, Scientometrics.

[55]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  International strategy for Nanotechnology Research , 2001 .