JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
A Framework for Description and Measurement of National Scientific Wealth with a Case Study on Iran
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
A Framework for Description and Measurement of National Scientific Wealth with a Case Study on Iran
Asadi, Saeid;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
A sustainable development in science, innovation, and technology requires a balanced distribution of scientific wealth in sub-country regions. This paper addresses the issue of geographical distribution of scientific wealth and its goal is to offer a framework to describe and measure the share of provinces in national scientific wealth. Our proposed model divides the indicators of scientific wealth into two groups, production and the use of scientific wealth. To evaluate this model, the scientific wealth of Iran was studied using recorded data on IRANDOC databases. Rich, average, and poor provinces were identified and the results showed that 70% of the scientific wealth belongs to 20% of the provinces. The findings can facilitate planning for a sustainable science and technology policy.
 Keywords
Scientific wealth;Iran;Geographical distribution;Regional development;Science productivity;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(4), 422-448. crossref(new window)

2.
Asadi, S., & Moradi, F. (2014). Correlation between industrial indicators and distribution of scientific wealth in Iran (2004-2008). JIPM, 30(4), 901-922. Text in Persian.

3.
Belew, R. (2005). Scientific impact quantity and quality: Analysis of two sources of bibliographic data. Arxiv. IR/0504036.

4.
Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Which cities’ paper output and citation impact are above expectation in information science? Some improvements of our previous mapping approaches. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 336-345.

5.
Frame, D.J. (1985). Problems in the use of literature-based S&T indicators in developing countries. In H. Morita-Lou (Ed.), Science and technology indicators for development (pp. 117-122). Boulder: Westview.

6.
Frame, D.J., Narin, F., & Carpenter, M.P. (1977). The distribution of world science. Social Studies of Science, 7, 501-516. crossref(new window)

7.
Garfield, E. (1983). Mapping science in the third world. Science and Public Policy, 10(3), 112-127.

8.
Glanzel, W., Schubert, A., & Czerwon, H.J. (1999). A bibliometric analysis of international scientific contribution of the European Union (1985-1992). Scientometrics, 45(2), 185-202. crossref(new window)

9.
Grupp, H., & Mogee, M.E. (2005). Indicators for national science and technology policy: Their development, use, and possible misuse. In H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 75-94). New York: Kluwer.

10.
Guerrero-Botea, V.P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 674-688. crossref(new window)

11.
Inhaber, H. &, Alvo, M. (1978). World science as an input-output system. Scientometrics, 1(1), 48-51.

12.
International Comparisons of R&D Performance (2014). In Science and engineering indicators 2014. Chapter 4. Research and development: National trends and international comparisons. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-4/chapter-4.pdf.

13.
King, D.A. (2004, July 15). The science impact of nations: What difference countries get for their research spending? Nature, 430, 311-315. crossref(new window)

14.
Lebeau, L.M. et al. (2008). The effect of university-industry collaboration on the scientific impact of publications: The Canadian case (1980-2005). Research Evaluation, 17(3), 227-232. crossref(new window)

15.
Leydesdorff, L., & Persson, O. (2010). Mapping the geography of science: Distribution patterns and networks of relations among cities and institutes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1622–1634.

16.
Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2012). Interactive overlays: A new method for generating global journal maps from Web-of-Science data. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 318-332. crossref(new window)

17.
May, R. M. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275, 793. crossref(new window)

18.
Moravcsik, M.J. (1985). Science in the developing countries: An unexplored and fruitful area for research in science studies. Journal of the Society for Social Studies of Science, 3(3), 2-13.

19.
National Science Board. (2012). Science and Engineering indicators 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/at.pdf.

20.
OECD (2011). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011. Highlights. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/sti/scienceandtechnologypolicy/48712591.pdf.

21.
Okubo Y., & Zitt M. (2004). Searching for research integration across Europe: A closer look at international and inter-regional collaboration in France. Science and Public, 31(3), 213-226. crossref(new window)

22.
Olmeda-Gómez, C. et al. (2009). Visualization of scientific co-authorship in Spanish universities: From regionalization to internationalization. Aslib Proceedings, 61(1), 83-100. crossref(new window)

23.
Osareh, F., & Wilson, C.S. (2000). Collaboration in Iranian scientific publication. LIBRI: International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 52, 88-98.

24.
PMO (2003). Outlook of I.R. Iran in 1404 A.H. horizon. No.101/193000. English version available at: http://intl.irannsr.org/services/nsr_content/17195-Irans-2025-vision.html

25.
Poddly, I. (2005). Comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science. Scientometrics, 64(1), 95–99. crossref(new window)

26.
Ponds, R., Oorta, F.V., & Frenkena, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423-444. crossref(new window)

27.
Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. PNAS, 105(45), 17268-17272. crossref(new window)

28.
Sanders, R. (1987). The Pareto principle: Its use and abuse. Journal of Services Marketing, 1(2), 37-40. crossref(new window)

29.
Shrum, W. (1997). View from a far: Visible productivity of scientists in the developing world. Scientometrics, 40(2), 215-35. crossref(new window)

30.
Thomson Reuters (2012). ScholarOne Manuscripts report, Global Publishing: Changes in submission trends and the impact on scholarly publishers. Retrieved from http://legalcurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/SSR-Global-Sub-infographic-Color.pdf.

31.
U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2011. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/11statab/science.pdf.

32.
UNESCO (2010). UNESCO Science Report 2010: The current status of science around the world. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001899/189958e.pdf.