Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hu, G."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Tang, L.; Hu, G.: Tracing the footprint of knowledge spillover : evidence from U.S.-China collaboration in nanotechnology (2013) 0.03 
    0.028273653 = product of:
  0.056547306 = sum of:
    0.056547306 = product of:
      0.11309461 = sum of:
        0.11309461 = weight(_text_:policy in 1039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11309461 = score(doc=1039,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.4146831 = fieldWeight in 1039, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1039)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The impact of international collaboration on research performance has been extensively explored over the past two decades. Most research, however, focuses on quantity and citation-based indicators. Using the turnover of keywords, this study develops an integrative approach, tracking and visualizing the shift of the research stream, and tests it within the context of U.S.-China collaboration in nanotechnology. The results show evidence in support of the linkage between the emergence of a new research stream of Chinese researchers when there is U.S.-China collaboration. We also find that the triggered research stream diffused further via extended coauthorship. Policy implications for science and technology development and resource allocation in the United States and China are discussed.
  2. Tang, L.; Hu, G.; Liu, W.: Funding acknowledgment analysis : queries and caveats (2017) 0.03 
    0.028273653 = product of:
  0.056547306 = sum of:
    0.056547306 = product of:
      0.11309461 = sum of:
        0.11309461 = weight(_text_:policy in 3442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11309461 = score(doc=3442,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.4146831 = fieldWeight in 3442, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) began systematically collecting acknowledgment information in August 2008. Since then, bibliometric analysis of funding acknowledgment (FA) has been growing and has aroused intense interest and attention from both academia and policy makers. Examining the distribution of FA by citation index database, by language, and by acknowledgment type, we noted coverage limitations and potential biases in each analysis. We argue that despite its great value, bibliometric analysis of FA should be used with caution.

Authors