IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v68y2022ics0160791x2200029x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative study of research and development related to nanotechnology in Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad, Ibrahim Dauda

Abstract

It has been proven that nanotechnology has a wide range of applications. This makes it a very significant technology for the future. Because of its scope, nanotechnology is multidisciplinary, requires specialized personnel, and is highly capital intensive. Thus, many nations are increasing their respective activities in fundamental research in nanotechnology intending to develop products and/or processes based on their respective strategies, as shown in more than 60 countries globally, Africa inclusive. This study assesses the current status of nanotechnology in Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa, focusing mainly on research and development (R & D). Malaysia was selected as a control for comparison with the selected African countries and the top-ranking nations in the factors used. The assessment related to R&D in nanotechnology was conducted based on background information, strategic plans, institutions and researchers involved, publications, and nano-based products. Results obtained indicate that South Africa has the highest ranking (66%) in R & D related to nanotechnology when compared to Egypt (59%) and Nigeria (38%). But the achievement is low for all the countries studied when compared to Malaysia (86%), used as a control, and others that have extremely high rankings in the factors studied. By implication, all the countries studied need to invest more, at different rates, in nano-based R & D to achieve their stated plans in this competitive global world.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad, Ibrahim Dauda, 2022. "A comparative study of research and development related to nanotechnology in Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:68:y:2022:i:c:s0160791x2200029x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X2200029X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101888?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kera, Denisa, 2014. "Innovation regimes based on collaborative and global tinkering: Synthetic biology and nanotechnology in the hackerspaces," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 28-37.
    2. Michael Schreiber, 2008. "An empirical investigation of the g‐index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h‐index, the A‐index, and the R‐index," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(9), pages 1513-1522, July.
    3. Arnaldi, Simone & Tyshenko, Michael G., 2014. "Nanotech traveling abroad: The international dimension of nanotechnology as a changing concept – A guest editorial," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-3.
    4. Terekhov, Alexander, 2011. "Scientometric approach to nanotechnology," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 23(3), pages 3-12.
    5. Ahmadvand, Emad & Salami, Seyed Reza & Soofi, Jahanyar Bamdad & Tabatabaeian, Seyed Habibollah, 2018. "Catch-up process in nanotechnology start-ups: The case of an Iranian electrospinning firm," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1-8.
    6. R. Karpagam & S. Gopalakrishnan & M. Natarajan & B. Ramesh Babu, 2011. "Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 501-522, November.
    7. Doran, Justin & Ryan, Geraldine, 2019. "Does nanotechnology research generate an innovation premium over other types of research? Evidence from Ireland," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    8. Saidi, Trust & Zeiss, Ragna, 2016. "Investigating promises of nanotechnology for development: A case study of the travelling of smart nano water filter in Zimbabwe," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 40-48.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schreiber, Michael, 2013. "A case study of the arbitrariness of the h-index and the highly-cited-publications indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 379-387.
    2. Lathabai, Hiran H., 2020. "ψ-index: A new overall productivity index for actors of science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    3. Cabrerizo, F.J. & Alonso, S. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F., 2010. "q2-Index: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the Hirsch core," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 23-28.
    4. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    5. Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2008. "An axiomatic analysis of Egghe’s g-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 364-368.
    6. Sameer Kumar & Jariah Mohd. Jan, 2013. "Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 491-517, December.
    7. Nan Zhang & Shanshan Wan & Peiling Wang & Peng Zhang & Qiang Wu, 2018. "A bibliometric analysis of highly cited papers in the field of Economics and Business based on the Essential Science Indicators database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1039-1053, August.
    8. Esquivel-Sada, Daphne, 2022. "Responsible intellectual property rights? Untangling open-source biotech adherence to intellectual property rights through DIYbio," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. Minaee, Mohammadreza & Elahi, Shaban & Majidpour, Mehdi & Manteghi, Manoochehr, 2021. "Lessons learned from an unsuccessful “catching-up” in the automobile industry of Iran," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    10. Schreiber, Michael, 2013. "How to derive an advantage from the arbitrariness of the g-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 555-561.
    11. Jianhua Hou & Bili Zheng & Yang Zhang & Chaomei Chen, 2021. "How do Price medalists’ scholarly impact change before and after their awards?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5945-5981, July.
    12. Qurat-ul Ain & Hira Riaz & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2019. "Evaluation of h-index and its citation intensity based variants in the field of mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 187-211, April.
    13. Browder, Russell E. & Aldrich, Howard E. & Bradley, Steven W., 2019. "The emergence of the maker movement: Implications for entrepreneurship research," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 459-476.
    14. Schreiber, Michael, 2010. "How to modify the g-index for multi-authored manuscripts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 42-54.
    15. Alfonso Ibáñez & Pedro Larrañaga & Concha Bielza, 2011. "Using Bayesian networks to discover relationships between bibliometric indices. A case study of computer science and artificial intelligence journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 523-551, November.
    16. Jingda Ding & Chao Liu & Goodluck Asobenie Kandonga, 2020. "Exploring the limitations of the h-index and h-type indexes in measuring the research performance of authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1303-1322, March.
    17. Hamdi A. Al-Jamimi & Galal M. BinMakhashen & Lutz Bornmann, 2022. "Use of bibliometrics for research evaluation in emerging markets economies: a review and discussion of bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5879-5930, October.
    18. Vinkler, Péter, 2012. "The case of scientometricians with the “absolute relative” impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 254-264.
    19. R. S. Bajwa & K. Yaldram & S. Rafique, 2013. "A scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 333-342, January.
    20. Marcel Clermont & Johanna Krolak & Dirk Tunger, 2021. "Does the citation period have any effect on the informative value of selected citation indicators in research evaluations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1019-1047, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:68:y:2022:i:c:s0160791x2200029x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.