IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v74y2008i1d10.1007_s11192-008-0104-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Triad’ or ‘tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world

Author

Listed:
  • Wolfgang Glänzel

    (KU Leuven
    Hungarian Academy of Sciences
    Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

  • Koenraad Debackere

    (KU Leuven
    Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

  • Martin Meyer

    (KU Leuven
    University of Sussex
    Helsinki University of Technology)

Abstract

The US-EU race for world leadership in science and technology has become the favourite subject of recent studies. Studies issued by the European Commission reported the increase of the European share in the world’s scientific production and announced world leadership of the EU in scientific output at the end of the last century. In order to be able to monitor those types of global changes, the present study is based on the 15-year period 1991–2005. A set of bibliometric and technometric indicators is used to analyse activity and impact patterns in science and technology output. This set comprises publication output indicators such as (1) the share in the world total, (2) subject-based publication profiles, (3) citation-based indicators like journal-and subject-normalised mean citation rates, (4) international co-publications and their impact as well as (5) patent indicators and publication-patent citation links (both directions). The evolution of national bibliometric profiles, ‘scientific weight’ and science-technology linkage patterns are discussed as well. The authors show, using the mirror of science and technology indicators, that the triad model does no longer hold in the 21st century. China is challenging the leading sciento-economic powers and the time is approaching when this country will represent the world’s second largest potential in science and technology. China and other emerging scientific nations like South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil and Turkey are already changing the balance of power as measured by scientific production, as they are at least in part responsible for the relative decline of the former triad.

Suggested Citation

  • Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere & Martin Meyer, 2008. "‘Triad’ or ‘tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(1), pages 71-88, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:74:y:2008:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-008-0104-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-008-0104-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-008-0104-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-008-0104-5?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. Giovanni Dosi & Patrick Llerena & Mauro Sylos Labin, 2005. "Science-Technology-Industry Links and the ”European Paradox”: Some Notes on the Dynamics of Scientific and Technological Research in Europe," Working Papers of BETA 2005-11, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Liming Liang & Frank Havemann & Michael Heinz & Roland Wagner-Döbler, 2006. "Structural similarities between science growth dynamics in China and in western countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 311-325, February.
    3. Wolfgang Glänzel & Jacqueline Leta & Bart Thijs, 2006. "Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(1), pages 67-86, April.
    4. Robert D. Shelton & Geoffrey M. Holdridge, 2004. "The US-EU race for leadership of science and technology: Qualitative and quantitative indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 353-363, August.
    5. Wolfgang Glänzel & Jacqueline Leta & Bart Thijs, 2006. "Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(1), pages 67-86, April.
    6. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2006. "The emergence of China as a leading nation in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 83-104, February.
    7. Jacqueline Leta & Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs, 2006. "Science in Brazil. Part 2: Sectoral and institutional research profiles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(1), pages 87-105, April.
    8. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou, 2005. "Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(3), pages 617-630, June.
    9. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2003. "A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 357-367, March.
    10. David A. King, 2004. "The scientific impact of nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 430(6997), pages 311-316, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cinzia Daraio & Francesco Fabbri & Giulia Gavazzi & Maria Grazia Izzo & Luca Leuzzi & Giammarco Quaglia & Giancarlo Ruocco, 2018. "Assessing the interdependencies between scientific disciplinary profiles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1785-1803, September.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Frizo Janssens & Bart Thijs, 2009. "A comparative analysis of publication activity and citation impact based on the core literature in bioinformatics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(1), pages 109-129, April.
    3. Reinhilde Veugelers, 2010. "Towards a multipolar science world: trends and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 439-456, February.
    4. Koen Jonkers & Frédérique Sachwald, 2018. "The dual impact of ‘excellent’ research on science and innovation: the case of Europe," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 159-174.

    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. Ping Zhou & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2010. "In-depth analysis on China’s international cooperation in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 597-612, March.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2018. "Scientometric research assessment in the developing world: A tribute to Michael J. Moravcsik from the perspective of the twenty-first century," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1517-1532, June.
    3. André Frazão Helene & Pedro Leite Ribeiro, 2011. "Brazilian scientific production, financial support, established investigators and doctoral graduates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 677-686, November.
    4. Natascha Helena Franz Hoppen & Samile Andréa de Souza Vanz, 2023. "The development of Brazilian women’s and gender studies: a bibliometric diagnosis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 227-261, January.
    5. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    6. Harlley Lima & Thiago H. P. Silva & Mirella M. Moro & Rodrygo L. T. Santos & Wagner Meira & Alberto H. F. Laender, 2015. "Assessing the profile of top Brazilian computer science researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 879-896, June.
    7. Loet Leydesdorff & Caroline Wagner, 2009. "Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 23-36, January.
    8. Ping Zhou & Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2009. "Regional analysis on Chinese scientific output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 839-857, December.
    9. Li Ying Yang & Ting Yue & Jie Lan Ding & Tao Han, 2012. "A comparison of disciplinary structure in science between the G7 and the BRIC countries by bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 497-516, November.
    10. Cinzia Daraio & Francesco Fabbri & Giulia Gavazzi & Maria Grazia Izzo & Luca Leuzzi & Giammarco Quaglia & Giancarlo Ruocco, 2018. "Assessing the interdependencies between scientific disciplinary profiles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1785-1803, September.
    11. Harzing, Anne-Wil & Giroud, Axèle, 2014. "The competitive advantage of nations: An application to academia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 29-42.
    12. Jacques Wainer & Eduardo C. Xavier & Fabio Bezerra, 2009. "Scientific production in Computer Science: A comparative study of Brazil and other countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 535-547, November.
    13. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    14. Jo Royle & Louisa Coles & Dorothy Williams & Paul Evans, 2007. "Publishing in international journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 59-86, April.
    15. Gregory J Hather & Winston Haynes & Roger Higdon & Natali Kolker & Elizabeth A Stewart & Peter Arzberger & Patrick Chain & Dawn Field & B Robert Franza & Biaoyang Lin & Folker Meyer & Vural Ozdemir & , 2010. "The United States of America and Scientific Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-9, August.
    16. Mauro Vitor Mendlowicz & Evandro Silva Freire Coutinho & Jerson Laks & Leonardo Franklin Fontenelle & Alexandre Martins Valença & William Berger & Ivan Figueira & Gláucia Azambuja Aguiar, 2011. "Is there a ‘gender gap’ in authorship of the main Brazilian psychiatric journals at the beginning of the 21st century?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 27-37, January.
    17. Albarrán, Pedro & Crespo, Juan A. & Ortuño, Ignacio, 2009. "A comparison of the scientific performance of the U. S. and the European Union at the turn of the XXI century," UC3M Working papers. Economics we095534, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    18. Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio & Ely Francina Tannuri Oliveira & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Henk F. Moed, 2020. "Does corresponding authorship influence scientific impact in collaboration: Brazilian institutions as a case of study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1349-1369, November.
    19. Renata R. Gonçalves & Christian Kieling & Rodrigo A. Bressan & Jair J. Mari & Luis A. Rohde, 2009. "The evaluation of scientific productivity in Brazil: An assessment of the mental health field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(2), pages 529-537, August.
    20. Wong, Chan-Yuan & Goh, Kim-Leng, 2010. "Growth behavior of publications and patents: A comparative study on selected Asian economies," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 460-474.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:scient:v:74:y:2008:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-008-0104-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.