A bilateral comparison of research performance at an institutional level
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abbasi, A., Altmann, J, & Hossain, L. (2011). 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. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594–607.
Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 403–412.
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.
Ajiferuke, I., Burell, O., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14, 421–433.
Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A. L. (2000). Attack and error tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406, 378–382.
Bajwa, R. S., Yaldram, K., & Rafique, S. (2013). A scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective. Scientometrics, 94(1), 333–342.
Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1), 127–145.
Barabási, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512.
Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Topical connections between the institutions within an organisation (institutional co-authorships, direct citation links and co-citations). Scientometrics,. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1425-1 .
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.
Cainelli, G., Maggioni, M. A., Uberti, T. E., & Felice, A. D. (2015). The strength of strong ties: How co-authorship affect productivity of academic economists? Scientometrics, 102(1), 673–699.
Carnabuci, G., & Bruggeman, J. (2009). Knowledge specialization, knowledge brokerage and the uneven growth of technology domains. Social Forces, 88(2), 607–642.
CAS. (2003). http://www.cas.cn/xw/kjsm/gjdt/200906/t20090608_623423.shtml . Accessed September 25, 2014
Chen, Z. F., & Guan, J. C. (2010). The impact of small world on innovation: an empirical study of 16 countries. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 97–106.
CNSI. (2014a). http://www1.cnsi.ucla.edu/index . Accessed September 25, 2014
CNSI. (2014b). http://www.cnsi.ucsb.edu/about/ . Accessed September 25, 2014
CNSI. (2014c). http://www.cnsi.ucsb.edu/about/cnsi_brochure.pdf . Accessed September 25, 2014
CNSI. (2014d). http://www1.cnsi.ucla.edu/external-affairs/page2.html . Accessed September 25, 2014
Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technology search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.
Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Brokerage and collaborative creativity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 443–475.
Fu, T. Z. J., Song, Q. Q., & Chiu, D. M. (2014). The academic social network. Scientometrics, 101, 203–239.
Gonzalez-Brambila, C. N., Veloso, F. M., & Krackhardt, D. (2013). The impact of network embeddedness on research output. Research Policy, 42, 1555–1567.
Guan, J. C., & Gao, X. (2008). Comparison and evaluation of Chinese research performance in the field of bioinformatics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 357–379.
Guan, J. C., & Liu, N. (2014). Measuring scientific research in emerging nano-energy field. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 16, 2356.
Guan, J. C., & Ma, N. (2007). China’s emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience ‘giants’. Research Policy, 36(6), 880–886.
Guan, J. C., & Wang, G. B. (2010). A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers. Scientometrics, 84, 331–343.
Guan, J. C., Yan, Y., & Zhang, J. J. (2014). How do collaborative features affect scientific output? Evidences from wind power field. Scientometrics,. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1311-x .
Heinze, T. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnology in Europe: Analysis of publications and patent applications including comparisons with the United States. Nanotechnology Law & Business, 1(4), 427–445.
Karpagam, R., Gopalakrishnan, S., Natarajan, M., & Ramesh Babu, B. (2011). Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: A scientometric analysis, 1990–2009. Scientometrics, 89, 501–522.
Kavyasrujana, D., & Rao, B. C. (2015). Hierarchical clustering for sentence extraction using cosine similarity measure. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 337, 185–191.
Kostoff, R. N. (2012). China/USA nanotechnology research output comparison—2011 update. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 986–990.
Kostoff, R. N., Barth, R. B., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2008). Quality vs quantity of publications in nanotechnology field from the Peoples Republic of China. Chinese Science Bulletin, 53(8), 1272–1280.
Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007). Global nanotechnology research metrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 565–601.
Lee, J. (2010). Heterogeneity, brokerage, and innovative performance: Endogenous formation of collaborative inventor networks. Organization Science, 21(4), 804.
Lee, D. H., Seo, I. W., Choe, H. C., & Kim, H. D. (2012). Collaboration network patterns and research performance: The case of Korean public research institutions. Scientometrics, 91(3), 925–942.
Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2009). Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics, 78(1), 23–36.
Mahapatra, M. (1985). On the validity of the theory of exponential growth of scientific literature. In Proceedings of the 15th IASLIC conference, Bangalore (pp. 61–70). Bangalore.
McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange. Academy of Management, 47(5), 735–746.
NCNST. (2014a). http://www.nanoctr.cn/ . Accessed September 25, 2014.
NCNST. (2014b). http://www.nanoctr.cn/xwdt/xshd/201001/t20100128_2737716.html . Accessed March 25, 2014.
Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404–409.
Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knoweldge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1115–1166.
Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673–693.
Rodan, S. (2010). Structural holes and managerial performance: Identifying the underlying mechanisms. Social Networks, 32(3), 168–179.
Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 541–562.
Rotolo, D., & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2013). When does centrality matter? Scientific productivity and the moderating role of research specialization and cross-community ties. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 648–670.
Savanur, K., & Srikanth, R. (2010). Modified collaborative coefficient: A new measure for quantifying the degree of research collaboration. Scientometrics, 84(2), 365–371.
Shipilov, A. V. (2009). Firm scope experience, historic multimarket contact with partners, centrality, and the relationship between structural holes and performance. Organization Science, 20, 85–106.
Tang, L., & Shapira, P. (2011). China–US scientific collaboration in nanotechnology: patterns and dynamics. Scientometrics, 88(1), 1–16.
UCOP (University of California Office of the President). (2014). http://www.ucop.edu/california-institutes/about/about.htm . Accessed September 25, 2014
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.
Wang, G. B., & Guan, J. C. (2010). The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China’s nanotechnology. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 338–350.
Wang, G. B., & Guan, J. C. (2011). Measuring science-technology interactions using patent citations and author–inventor links: An exploration analysis from Chinese nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(12), 6245–6262.
Wang, C. L., Rodan, S., Fruin, M., & Xu, X. Y. (2014). Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 484–514.
Wang, X. W., Xu, S. M., Liu, D., & Liang, Y. X. (2012). The role of Chinese-American scientists in China–US scientific collaboration: A study in nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 91(3), 737–749.
Wang, X. W., Xu, S. M., Wang, Z., Peng, L., & Wang, C. L. (2013). International scientific collaboration of China: collaborating countries, institutions and individuals. Scientometrics, 95, 885–894.
Watts, D. J. (1999). Small worlds: The dynamics of networks between order and randomness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of small-world. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.
Yayavaram, S., & Ahuja, G. (2008). Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 333–362.
Zhao, Y. L. (2013). Nanosciences at NCNST: From fundamental research to industrial applications. Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany), 14, 2381.
Zhou, P., & Bornmann, L. (2014). An overview of academic publishing and collaboration between China and Germany. Scientometrics,. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1418-0 .