Emerging Petroleum-Oriented Nanotechnologies for Reservoir ...
Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts...
Transcript of Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts...
![Page 1: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Nanotechnologies
Output, Impact and
Collaboration
A comparative analysis of France and other
countries
![Page 2: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
![Page 3: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
CONTENTS 3
Executive summary
Nanotechnologies are a key enabling technology with a broad spectrum of applications
in several different fields and are one of the top research priorities at the European level
and in France as well.
This report provides an overview of the research activities on nanotechnologies using a
document set of +428,000 papers published in the period 2010 – 2014, collected by a
search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals
using a semantic technology called Elsevier Fingerprint Engine. The analysis is carried
out on production, quality and collaboration.
Nanotechnologies are one of the fastest growing areas of research worldwide, with an
average growth rate close to 11% year-over-year for the past 5 years. Growth is driven
mainly by China and India while the US and the European countries struggle in keeping
up with the global pace.
Nanotechnology is also a highly competitive field, with a citation impact almost 70%
higher than the world average. While the US still leads the group of comparator countries
from the point of view of citation impact, China has surpassed Germany and bridged the
gap with UK, while Iran has surpassed France and reached Italy.
European countries have a strong propensity for international collaboration, with about
half of their papers showing co-authors from different countries; China, India and Iran on
the other hand have 40 to 50% of their outputs resulting from institutional collaboration.
US, Japan and South Korea have a more balanced ratio of institutional and international
collaborations.
Impact doesn’t seem to be strongly correlated to the types of collaborations, with
countries that benefit from international partnerships, like the UK, and others, such as
France, which do not gain citation impact proportionally to their internationalization
efforts.
Overall, this analysis confirms that nanotechnologies are an extremely competitive field,
where the leadership of the US and EU is challenged by countries in Asia that are
investing heavily in this area and see not only their output but also the impact of their
research growing steadily. It will be worthwhile to analyse in the coming years if the
availability of dedicated funds through the H2020 programs will result in European
countries being able to maintain a position of scientific leadership in this field which has
an enormous potential to be translated into innovation and eventually economic
development.
![Page 4: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
CONTENTS 4
Contents
Contents 4
1 Case study: Nanotechnologies 5
1.1 Introduction 6 1.2 Overview of the dataset 7 1.3 Key Findings 10 1.4 Output 11 1.5 Citation Impact 13 1.6 Collaboration 17
APPENDIX A: Methodology and data for the case study on Nanotechnologies 20
APPENDIX B: Semantic Fingerprinting 22
APPENDIX C: List of nanotechnology related journals used to select the keywords 23
![Page 5: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 5
Case study:
Nanotechnologies
We investigate the performance of France in the field of Nanotechnologies. The analysis is
based on a multidisciplinary corpus of publications selected through relevant keywords.
We focus on the number of publications, the citation impact, the collaborations and their
influence on production and impact for France and selected countries among the most
active in the field.
![Page 6: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 6
1.1 Introduction
Nanotechnologies, with their application to a broad range of challenges (such as
environmental issues, sustainable energies, food safety, advanced materials and
medicine) have been selected by the European Commission as one of the Key Enabling
Technologies (KETs) that will allow European industries to retain competitiveness and
capitalise on new markets1. To support research and development efforts on KETs -
and Nanotechnologies in particular - dedicated funding programs such as the
Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies (LEIT) have been created within
Horizon 20202, which follow up on previous funding streams in the Framework
Programmes 6 and 7. Likewise, In France, nanotechnologies are definitely at the heart
of several of the Défis of the Stratégie nationale de la recherche3.
In this study we focus on the scientific output in the field of Nanotechnologies in the
years from 2010 to 2014 included. In order to conduct an analysis as accurate and
comprehensive as possible, a corpus of publications has been assembled with a
bottom-up approach, by selecting documents based on relevant keywords. The
resulting dataset has been used to model two research areas: one including all
publications, the other limited to publications with at least one author from a French
institution. A detailed description of the methodology is available in Appendix A.
After having qualified the dataset in terms of its content and coverage, the analysis will
cover the dimensions of
Output
Citation impact
Collaboration
Research trends
1 See http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/key-enabling-technologies/index_en.htm
2 See http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/nanotechnologies
3 See http://cache.media.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/file/Strategie_Recherche/69/3/rapport_SNR_397693.pdf
![Page 7: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 7
1.2 Overview of the dataset
The dataset contains 428,895 publications published between 2010 and 2014, which
corresponds to about 3.3% of the total scientific output recorded by Scopus in the same
period. The pie chart below shows the distribution of subject areas represented in the
dataset, based on the classification of the journals in which the papers in this dataset
have been published.
Figure 0.1— Breakdown of Nanotechnologies by subject area, 2010 – 2014.
Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
The same chart applied to the subset of publications featuring at least one French
institution shows a similar distribution, but with a higher share of Physics and a lower
one of Engineering.
Figure 0.2— Breakdown of Nanotechnologies by subject area, 2010 – 2014.
Publications with at least one French institution. Source: SciVal.com, last updated
27 July 2015
The top journals appearing in this research area, by number of publications, are listed in
the table below, both for all publications and for France only. The journals that are
unique to each list are highlighted in yellow.
![Page 8: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 8
Table 0.3— Top journals by number of publications, Nanotechnologies, World, 2010
- 2014. Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
Journal Number of publications
Journal of Physical Chemistry C 7645
Advanced Materials Research 6487
Applied Physics Letters 6287
Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials
Physics
5443
RSC Advances 5069
Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 4801
ACS Nano 4788
Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical
Engineering
4753
Journal of Applied Physics 4745
Langmuir 4520
Nanoscale 4330
Nano Letters 4007
Nanotechnology 3990
ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 3742
Journal of Materials Chemistry 3709
Materials Letters 3606
Applied Surface Science 3578
Chemical Communications 3435
Electrochimica Acta 3241
Carbon 2923
Table 0.4— Top journals by number of publications, Nanotechnologies, France,
2010 - 2014. Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
Journal Number of publications
Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials
Physics
600
Journal of Physical Chemistry C 502
Applied Physics Letters 425
Langmuir 358
Journal of Applied Physics 327
Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical
Engineering
310
Nanotechnology 243
ACS Nano 218
Physical Review Letters 216
Nano Letters 206
Carbon 176
Nanoscale 173
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 163
Chemical Communications 145
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 144
Journal of Materials Chemistry 135
Soft Matter 134
Materials Research Society Symposium - Proceedings 128
Journal of Nanoparticle Research 125
RSC Advances 119
![Page 9: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 9
The most frequent concepts featured in the research area are represented in the word
clouds below, where the size of the label is proportional to the frequency with which it
appears in the documents and its colour takes into account the growth trend. The first
one includes all the publications in the research area, the second one only those with at
least one French institution in the authors’ affiliations.
Figure 0.5— Top 50 concepts in Nanotechnologies, World, 2010 - 2014.
Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
Figure 0.6— Top 50 concepts in Nanotechnologies, France, 2010 - 2014.
Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
![Page 10: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 10
1.3 Key Findings
FRANCE’S WORLD ARTICLE SHARE
-5.9% Research in nanotechnologies grows 4 times faster than the
world average across all fields. With an average growth of 4.4%,
France, like the US and other European countries) has been
losing output share over the past 5 years.
FRANCE FIELD-WEIGHTED CITATION IMPACT
1.67 Articles in nanotechnologies receive on average 68% more
citations than the global average across all fields, years and
document types. In such a competitive research area, France is
keeping the pace with the world average citation impact, but has
been surpassed by Iran and scores below other European
countries such as Italy, Germany and the UK.
OUTPUT
Nanotechnologies are one of the fastest growing areas of research worldwide, with an average growth rate close to 11% year-over-year
for the past 5 years. Growth is driven mainly by China and India while the US and the European countries struggle in keeping up with
the global pace.
IMPACT
Nanotechnology is a highly competitive field, with a citation impact almost 70% higher than the world average. While the US still leads
the group of comparator countries from the point of view of citation impact, China has surpassed Germany and bridged the gap with UK,
while Iran has surpassed France and reached Italy.
COLLABORATION
European countries have a strong propensity for international collaboration, with about half of their papers showing co-authors from
different countries; China, India and Iran on the other hand have 40 to 50% of their outputs resulting from institutional collaboration. US,
Japan and South Korea have a more balanced ratio of institutional and international collaborations.
Impact doesn’t seem to be strongly correlated to the types of collaborations, with countries that benefit from international partnerships,
like the UK, and others, such as France, which do not gain citation impact proportionally to their internationalization efforts.
![Page 11: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 11
1.4 Output
1.4.1 Research output in Nanotechnologies is growing faster than
world’s average across fields
In the period from 2010 to 2014 the overall production in Nanotechnologies has reached
a total of 428,895 publications, with a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of
10.95%, which is 4 times faster than the world’s average across all fields in the same
period (2.7%).
Figure 0.8 shows the top 10 countries in the field by scholarly output: China is the
largest contributor, followed by the United States, while the remaining 8 countries are
much closer to each other and well below the production of the first two.
1.4.2 World article share is the highest for China while Europe and
US share is declining
In terms of share and share growth, the combined effect of the strong output size and
growth of China and, to a lesser extent, India and Iran, results in a decline of
publications share of European countries and United States, as shown in Figure 0.9.
This means that the overall growth in the field, observed in Figure 0.7, is driven by
developing countries.
France has grown on average by 4.4% over the past five years, meaning that its overall
share has declined by 6%; the same trend is shown by other European countries such
as Germany, the UK and, to a lesser extent, Italy.
Figure 0.7— Number of publications, World and France, Nanotechnologies, 2010 –
2014.
Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
Figure 0.8— Overall number of articles and Compound Annual Growth Rate
(CAGR) for the top 10 contributing countries, Nanotechnologies, 2010 - 2014.
Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
![Page 12: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 12
Figure 0.9— Overall share of articles and Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
for the top 10 contributing countries, Nanotechnologies, 2010 - 2014. Source:
SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
![Page 13: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 13
1.5 Citation Impact
1.5.1 Global citation share is the highest for China and declining for
US and Europe
The number of citations received by an article from subsequently-published articles is
widely recognized as a proxy of the quality or importance of the reported research4.
As Figure 0.10 shows, a similar pattern can be observed between the share of
publications per country and the share of citations: if we look at the top two countries,
we see China surpassing the United States in publications share in 2011 and the same
happening with citations share in 2012, where the time difference can be explained by
the dynamics of citations, which are accrued by articles after they have been published.
France, Germany and the UK show a decline in citation share which is in line with the
trend in output share, while Italy is less affected by the decline.
Figure 0.10— Overall share of citations for the top 10 contributing countries,
Nanotechnologies, 2010 - 2014. Right-hand panel excludes China and the US for
clarity. Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
1.5.2 The global citation impact of Nanotechnologies articles is much
higher than the world’s average across all fields
While citations provide an intuitive way to measure research impact, they are not
comparable across different fields, publication years and document types (articles,
reviews, conference papers, etc.). A more sophisticated way of measuring scientific
impact is to use field-weighted citation impact (FWCI). FWCI normalizes the differences
in citations due to the subject field, publication year and document type. The world is
indexed to an FWCI value of 1.00. An FWCI of more than 1.00 indicates that the entity’s
publications have been cited more often than expected based on the global average for
similar publications.
Table 0.11 shows the overall FWCI of the document set representing nanotechnologies
research. While the global value has decreased from 2010 to 2014, nanotechnology
remains a research area with high global impact, receiving 68% more citations than the
global average.
4 Davis, P.M. (2009) “Reward or persuasion? The battle to define the meaning of a citation” Learned
Publishing 22 (1) pp. 5-11.
![Page 14: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 14
Table 0.11— FWCI for top 10 contributing countries and world, Nanotechnologies,
2010 - 2014. Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
China 1,76 1,82 1,87 1,86 1,87
United States 2,46 2,26 2,24 2,19 2,15
India 1,52 1,31 1,36 1,31 1,34
South Korea 1,85 1,89 1,85 1,89 1,76
Germany 2,08 1,96 1,92 1,75 1,71
Japan 1,6 1,55 1,53 1,4 1,51
France 1,82 1,79 1,66 1,6 1,52
Iran 1,45 1,38 1,3 1,38 1,72
United Kingdom 2,18 2,02 2,02 2,04 1,89
Italy 1,93 1,88 1,83 1,76 1,71
World 1,77 1,71 1,69 1,64 1,63
The high impact of nanotechnologies, combined with the strong growth in production,
poses significant challenges to countries who try to remain competitive in this field. By
rebasing the FWCI to the world’s value it becomes easier to compare countries among
themselves and with the global average. This is represented in Figure 0.12.
Figure 0.12— Rebased field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) for the top 10
contributing countries, Nanotechnologies, 2010 - 2014. Source: SciVal.com, last
updated 27 July 2015
The rebased FWCI indicates that the US and UK still have the highest average impact
in this field, but countries such as China and Iran are rapidly improving. Among the
other European countries, Italy and Germany are still above the world’s average,
although the latter shows an important decline, while France in the last three years has
performed below world’s average and scores consistently below the other EU countries
in the comparator group.
1.5.3 Highly cited articles in Nanotechnologies are almost twice more
frequent than in other fields
The distribution of citations among articles is known to be strongly skewed, with a small
number of articles receiving the majority of the citations5 and a long tail of articles with
5 De Solla Price, D. J. (1965) “Networks of scientific papers,” Science. 149: 510–515. doi:
10.1126/science.149.3683.510.
![Page 15: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 15
few or no citations at all. Therefore it is meaningful to combine FWCI, which is an
average, with another metric that focuses on the subset of highly cited articles, meaning
those articles that rank in the top 1% and 10% of the most cited articles by publication
year and subject area.
If we assumed that citations in nanotechnologies articles follow the same distribution as
all other articles, it would be reasonable to expect that roughly1% of the articles in the
document set fall in the top 1% most cited articles and likewise for the 10% threshold. If
the share is higher for nanotechnologies, this means that articles in this field tend to
accumulate on the higher band of the citation spectrum. Figure 0.13 shows the trend of
highly cited articles in nanotechnologies from 2010 to 2014. 2.4% of the articles
published in Nanotechnologies in 2010 belong to the top 1% most cited articles
worldwide for the same year, whereas 19% of them belong to the top 10%. These
shares are consistently much higher than the corresponding thresholds for all years
considered, although the trend shows a decline that is similar to the trend for the field-
weighted citation impact.
Figure 0.13— Articles with citation counts in the top 1st and 10
th percentile,
Nanotechnologies, World, 2010 - 2014. Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July
2015
If we look at the distribution of articles in the top 1st percentile by country, we see that
the US and UK are still leading the group of comparator countries, but the share has
been reduced, especially for the US which have gone from 4.6% in 2010 to 2.6% in
2014. Likewise, Germany has seen his share cut by almost 50%, going from 3.0% to
1.6%; on the other hand Iran is the only country among the top 10 with an opposite
trend, having increased its share from 1.0% to 1.8%.
![Page 16: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 16
Figure 0.14— Distribution of articles with citation counts in the top 1st percentile by
country, Nanotechnologies, 2010 and 2014. Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27
July 2015
![Page 17: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 17
1.6 Collaboration
It is a known fact that researchers are increasingly collaborating with international
partners6 and that this type of collaboration yields higher impact
7. One way to measure
collaboration is by looking at co-authorship relationships in publications, which can be
classified as international, national, institutional and single authorship (see Table 0.15
for the definitions).
Table 0.15— Definitions of different geographic collaborations, based on co-authorship
Type of
collaboration
Definition
International Multi-authored research outputs where authors are affiliated with
institutions in at least two
different countries
National Multi-authored research outputs where authors are affiliated with
institutions in more than one institution but within the same country
Institutional Multi-authored research outputs where all authors are affiliated with
the same institution
Single Author Single-authored research outputs
The distribution of articles by collaboration type for the field of Nanotechnologies is
represented in Figure 0.16.
Figure 0.16— Distribution of articles by collaboration type, Nanotechnologies, 2010
-2014. Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
It is striking that every year half of the articles result from institutional collaborations and
that national and international collaborations are approximately equal, while it is
6 Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., and Fortunato, S. (2012) "World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the
role of geography in science," Scientific Reports. 2: 902. Retrieved online from:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121129/srep00902/full/srep00902.html.
7 Science Europe and Elsevier. (2013) "Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research
Collaboration and Researcher Mobility," Retrieved online from: http://www.scienceeurope.org/uploads/Public
documents and speeches/SE and Elsevier Report Final.pdf; The Royal Society. (2011) "Knowledge,
Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century," (J. Wilson, et al, Eds.) London:
The Royal Society. p. 113. Retrieved online from: http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/knowledge-networks-
nations/report/.
![Page 18: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 18
somewhat expected that publications with a single author are a small fraction of the
total. It is worth exploring the collaboration patterns for the top 10 contributing countries,
to see whether patterns emerge that may explain the aggregated figures.
Figure 0.17— Distribution of articles by collaboration type and country,
Nanotechnologies, 2009 -2014. Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
European countries, France and the UK in particular, have a high share of international
collaborations, while US, South Korea and Japan have comparable proportions of
institutional and international collaborations, although the latter are growing in all three
countries. China, India and Iran, on the other hand, show a remarkably higher share of
![Page 19: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
CASE STUDY: NANOTECHNOLOGIES 19
institutional collaborations, which, combined with their high share of outputs, explains
the aggregated figures seen above. While for certain countries international
collaboration seems to reflect on scientific impact, this is not so evident for France.
While it has the second largest value for international collaboration among the
comparator countries, its performance is below the world’s average citation impact, as
shown in Figure 0.18.
Figure 0.18— Field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) vs. share of international
collaborations by country. The FWCI value is normalized to the world average in
Nanotechnologies. 2010 -2014. Source: SciVal.com, last updated 27 July 2015
While the complex nature of research collaborations cannot be fully captured by
statistics alone, it would be worthwhile to analyse in more detail the existing
collaborations of French institutions in nanotechnology research projects to have a
better understanding, especially taking into account the long-standing tradition of
France as an international research partner.
![Page 20: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
APPENDIX A 20
Methodology and rationale
Nanotechnologies, like other research fields having a broad
spectrum of applications in different domains, pose interesting
challenges in their definition, because the traditional top-down
classification schemes, based on journals, may overlook
significant contributions, like for example the publications from
the multidisciplinary journals (such as Nature, Science, and
others). Therefore, a bottom-up, publication-based approach is
the preferred approach in such cases. Papers are selected with
a keywords-based search, where a set of selected keywords
defines the field of interest and filters on publication years,
countries, etc. can be applied at a later stage. The search query
and additional filters are used in SciVal to create a Research
Area that constitutes the entity to which all subsequent analyses
are applied. The methodology to create the keywords based
search query consists of three steps.
Step 1: Creation of a reference corpus for the
identification of key concepts in
Nanotechnologies
A list of 101 journals devoted to the dissemination of
nanotechnologies and indexed in the Scopus database has been
used as a starting point; this list is available in Appendix C. Of all
the documents included in those journals, only those published
in the years 2005 – 2015 have been considered, besides only
papers with at least one author from a French institution have
been included, to emphasize the research areas that are of
particular importance for this country. This has led to a set of
3737 publications on which the semantic analysis has been
performed to extract key weighted concepts.
Step 2: Extraction and ranking of key concepts
and terms using semantic fingerprints
Using the semantic Elsevier Fingerprint Engine (see Appendix B
), an array of weighted concepts – drawn from the Compendex8
thesaurus - has been extracted from each publication in the
corpus. The resulting aggregated set of concepts has then been
clustered into three groups, by applying a k-means clustering
algorithm9 which groups keywords with similar frequency and
8 See http://www.elsevier.com/solutions/engineering-village/content/compendex
9 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-means_clustering
aggregated weight, so that each cluster includes concepts with
similar importance in the definition of the research area.
Step 3: Selection of key concepts and creation
of the search query
For each cluster, a further selection has been done, discarding
concepts that are too generic (e.g. “Temperature”, “Models”,
“Materials”) and would lead to an increment in false positives
(i.e. documents that include those concepts but are not actually
relevant for nanotechnologies).
The selected concepts are listed in the following table.
Table 0.19— Key concepts selected to define
Nanotechnologies.
Nanoparticles Nanoelectronics
Nanowires Nanoscience
Carbon nanotubes Carbon nanotube field effect
transistors
Graphene Nanoindentation
Semiconductor quantum dots Nanoshells
Nanocrystals Nanocrystallites
Nanostructures Nanoprobes
Nanotubes Carbon nanofibers
Nanocomposites Nanosheets
Nanotechnology Magnetite nanoparticles
Nanostructured materials Nanoneedles
Single-walled carbon nanotubes
(SWCN)
Nanorings
Monolayers Nanolithography
Nanorods Nanosensors
Appendix A
Methodology and data for the case
study on Nanotechnologies
![Page 21: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
APPENDIX A 21
Semiconductor quantum wells Nanobiotechnology
Nanoclusters Nanocomposite films
Nanoimprint lithography Nanocrystalline powders
Metal nanoparticles Nanocantilevers
Nanocapsules Nanoreactors
Medical nanotechnology Nanocrystallization
Nanoribbons Nanotransistors
Electron beam lithography Nanorobotics
Nanofibers Nanomagnetics
Multiwalled carbon nanotubes
(MWCN)
Nanotips
Nanophotonics Nanobelts
Nanodiamonds Nanohorns
Self assembled monolayers Nanocrystalline materials
Nanospheres Nanocrystalline silicon
NEMS Nanomechanics
Nanosystems Nanorobots
Nanofluidics Nanotribology
![Page 22: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
APPENDIX B 22
A semantic fingerprint consists of all the key concepts derived
from a piece of text, weighted to reflect their relative importance.
The Elsevier Fingerprint Engine can be used to determine the
semantic fingerprint of any text, from grant applications to
publications. A number of thesauri spanning all major disciplines,
along with Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques, are
applied to scan and analyze text; in this study, publications from
the Scopus database were scanned to identify and weight key
concepts and terms related to nanotechnologies research. The
Elsevier Fingerprint Engine assigns to each document a
collection of key representative concepts—its semantic
fingerprint.
The advantage of using key concepts based on semantic
fingerprint technology is that the resulting terms are of higher
quality and are more representative than standard sets of
keywords, which often contain duplicates, synonyms, and
inclusion of irrelevant terms. With the Elsevier Fingerprint
Engine, various NLP modules are applied to a text source,
enabling the computer to recognize and interpret complex text,
including idioms, hyphenations and abbreviations. The concept-
finding algorithm is sensitive to spelling variations such as case
sensitivity, stop words, normalization, and word ordering, but
ignores insignificant differences wherever these variations have
no meaning. Concept finding can be constrained by part-of-
speech requirements on terms (e.g., “lead” identified as a noun
or a verb) and also by immediate negated context (e.g., “non-
Hodgkin Lymphoma” must not be found as “Hodgkin
Lymphoma”).
Figure 0.1 shows an example of a semantic fingerprint based on
a published abstract. The Elsevier Fingerprint Engine generates
a graphical representation of the concepts and terms included in
the abstract, weighted by importance.
Semantic fingerprints can be used for describing themes and
identifying all articles in Scopus worldwide that are related to a
theme. Fingerprints are ideal for describing groups of articles
and identifying articles that are related to one another in terms of
subject area, such as nanotechnologies research. Fingerprints
can be aggregated at the department, institute, and country level
to examine research output, emerging research trends, who is
doing the research, and where it is being done.
Figure 0.1— Semantic fingerprint of a scientific abstract after processing by the Elsevier Fingerprint Engine.
Appendix B
Semantic Fingerprinting
![Page 23: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
APPENDIX C 23
Source Title ISSN Coverage
ACS Nano 19360851 2007-
ongoing
Advances in Nanoporous
Materials
18787959 2010
Advances in Natural
Sciences: Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology
20436262 2010-
ongoing
Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine
and Biotechnology
21691401 2013-
ongoing
Beilstein Journal of
Nanotechnology
21904286 2010-
ongoing
BioNanoScience 21911630 2011-
ongoing
Cancer Nanotechnology 18686958 2010-
ongoing
Current Nanoscience 15734137 2006-
ongoing
Digest Journal of
Nanomaterials and
Biostructures
18423582 2009-
ongoing
e-Journal of Surface Science
and Nanotechnology
13480391 2005-
ongoing
European Journal of
Nanomedicine
16625986 2012-
ongoing,
2009-2010
Frontiers of Nanoscience 18762778 2011-
ongoing,
2009
Fullerenes Nanotubes and
Carbon Nanostructures
1536383X 2002-
ongoing
Handai Nanophotonics 15740641 2006-2007,
2004
IEE Proceedings
Nanobiotechnology
14781581 2003-2006
IEEE Nanotechnology
Magazine
19324510 2007-
ongoing
IEEE Transactions on
Nanobioscience
15361241 2002-
ongoing
IEEE Transactions on
Nanotechnology
1536125X 2002-
ongoing
IET Nanobiotechnology 17518741 2007-
ongoing
International Journal of Green
Nanotechnology
19430892 2011-
ongoing
International Journal of Green
Nanotechnology: Biomedicine
1943085X 2009-2012
International Journal of Green
Nanotechnology: Materials
Science and Engineering
19430841 2009-2010
International Journal of Green
Nanotechnology: Physics and
Chemistry
19430876 2009-2011
International Journal of Nano
and Biomaterials
17528933 2009-
ongoing
International Journal of
Nanoelectronics and
Materials
19855761 2012-
ongoing
International Journal of
Nanomanufacturing
17469392 2009-
ongoing
International Journal of
Nanomechanics Science and
Technology
19475748 2010-2012
International journal of
nanomedicine
11769114 2006-
ongoing
International Journal of
Nanoparticles
17532507 2009-
ongoing
International Journal of
Nanoscience
0219581X 2004-
ongoing
International Journal of
Nanotechnology
14757435 2004-
ongoing
International Journal of Smart
and Nano Materials
19475411 2010-
ongoing
Journal of Biomedical
Nanotechnology
15507033 2007-
ongoing
Journal of Bionanoscience 15577910 2008-
ongoing
Journal of Computational and
Theoretical Nanoscience
15461955 2004-
ongoing
Journal of Experimental
Nanoscience
17458080 2007-
ongoing
Journal of Laser Micro
Nanoengineering
18800688 2010-
ongoing
Journal of Metastable and
Nanocrystalline Materials
14226375 2003-2005
Appendix C
List of nanotechnology related journals
used to select the keywords
![Page 24: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
APPENDIX C 24
Journal of Micro/
Nanolithography, MEMS, and
MOEMS
19325150 2007-
ongoing
Journal of Micro-Nano
Mechatronics
18653928 2011-
ongoing,
2009-
ongoing
Journal of Nano- and
Electronic Physics
20776772 2009-
ongoing
Journal of Nano Research 16625250 2008-
ongoing
Journal of Nanobiotechnology 14773155 2003-
ongoing
Journal of Nanoelectronics
and Optoelectronics
1555130X 2007-
ongoing
Journal of Nanomaterials 16874110 2006-
ongoing
Journal of Nanomechanics
and Micromechanics
21535434 2011-
ongoing
Journal of Nanoneuroscience 19390637 2012, 2009
Journal of Nanoparticle
Research
13880764 1999-
ongoing
Journal of Nanophotonics 19342608 2007-
ongoing
Journal of Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology
15334880 2001-
ongoing
Journal of Nanostructured
Polymers and
Nanocomposites
17904439 2005-
ongoing
Journal of Nanotechnology 16879503 2010-
ongoing
Journal of Nanotechnology in
Engineering and Medicine
19492944 2010-
ongoing
Journal of Vacuum Science
and Technology B:
Microelectronics and
Nanometer Structures
10711023 1995-2008,
1992, 1986,
1982-1984
Journal of Vacuum Science
and Technology B:
Nanotechnology and
Microelectronics
21662754 2009-
ongoing,
1991-1992
Micro and Nano Letters 17500443 2007-
ongoing
Micro and Nanosystems 18764029 2010-
ongoing
Microfluidics and Nanofluidics 16134982 2004-
ongoing
Nami Jishu yu Jingmi
Gongcheng/Nanotechnology
and Precision Engineering
16726030 2006-
ongoing
Nano 17932920 2008-
ongoing
Nano - i Mikrosistemnaya
Tekhnika
18138586 2005
Nano Biomedicine 18835198 2009-
ongoing
Nano Biomedicine and
Engineering
21505578 2009-
ongoing
Nano Communication
Networks
18787789 2010-
ongoing
Nano Energy 22112855 2012-
ongoing
Nano Letters 15306984 2001-
ongoing
Nano Research 19980124 2009-
ongoing
Nano Today 17480132 2006-
ongoing
Nanobiotechnology 15511286 2005-2009
NanoEthics 18714757 2007-
ongoing
Nanomaterials and
Nanotechnology
2011-
ongoing
Nanomedicine 17435889 2006-
ongoing
Nanomedicine:
Nanotechnology, Biology, and
Medicine
15499634 2005-
ongoing
Nano-Micro Letters 21505551 2009-
ongoing
Nanopages 17874033 2010-
ongoing
Nanoscale 20403364 2009-
ongoing
Nanoscale Research Letters 19317573 2006-
ongoing
Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology - Asia
22106812 2011-
ongoing
Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology Letters
19414900 2010-
ongoing
NanoScience and Technology 14344904 2011-
ongoing
Nanostructured Materials 09659773 1992-1999
Nanotechnologies in Russia 19950780 2009-
ongoing
Nanotechnology 09574484 1990-
ongoing
Nanotechnology Law and
Business
15462080 2005-
ongoing
Nanotechnology Perceptions 16606795 2008-
ongoing
Nanotechnology, Science and
Applications
11778903 2010-
ongoing
Nanotoxicology 17435390 2007-
ongoing
Nature Nanotechnology 17483387 2006-
ongoing
Odgojne znanosti/Educational
Sciences
18461204 2009-
ongoing
![Page 25: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
APPENDIX C 25
Open Nanomedicine Journal 18759335 2011
Optical Nanoscopy 21922853 2012-
ongoing
Photonics and Nanostructures
- Fundamentals and
Applications
15694410 2003-
ongoing
Physica E: Low-Dimensional
Systems and Nanostructures
13869477 1997-
ongoing,
1973-1974
Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part
N: Journal of
Nanoengineering and
Nanosystems
17403499 2008-
ongoing
Radovi - Zavoda za povijesne
znanosti HAZU u Zadru
13300474 2009-
ongoing
Recent Patents on
Nanotechnology
18722105 2007-
ongoing
RSC Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology
17577136 2009-2012
SPR Nanoscience 20493541 2014-
ongoing
Synthesis and Reactivity in
Inorganic, Metal-Organic and
Nano-Metal Chemistry
15533174 2005-
ongoing
Thin Films and
Nanostructures
15435016 2007-2008,
2005, 2002-
2003
Wiley interdisciplinary
reviews. Nanomedicine and
nanobiotechnology
19390041 2009-
ongoing
![Page 26: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
![Page 27: Nanotechnologies Output, Impact and Collaboration...search query that utilizes key concepts extracted from a sample of relevant journals using a semantic technology called Elsevier](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042207/5eaa687373007b4be24098db/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
NOTES 27
©2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
.