科学合作方式及其功能的科学计量学研究
|
摘要
在当今大科学时代,随着科学技术发展的日趋全球化、科学自身愈益加速的分化和综合性发展趋势的增强,科学合作日益成为科学研究的主流方式,成为发展大科学和解决全球化问题的主要途径,国内外各种科研组织和科研机构以新的方式新的思路参与合作研究。新的科学合作对于凝聚创新思想、获取科技信息、共享研究资源、培养和造就新时期复合型人才,在重要学科领域实现跨越式发展以及取得科学突破等方面具有十分重要的意义。正是在这一背景下,论文以现有关于科学合作的科学计量学研究成果为基础,将科学能力学和制度科学学的原理结合起来,运用科学计量学的最新方法,研究当代科学前沿主要领域国际合作方式与科学能力的关系,分析科学前沿国际合作的方式和动因,揭示科学合作方式对科学产出能力的影响,并引入网络分析法探讨纳米科技领域合作网络的特征及其对科研绩效与学科交叉的影响,从而在一定程度上为丰富和深化科学合作理论提供了科学依据和数据支持。
论文首先探讨了合作的本质和科学合作的涵义,在马克思主义生产力和生产关系理论以及科学能力学、政治科学学、制度科学学有关科研生产力与科研生产关系理论指导下,探究了科学合作的双重属性和双重功能,提出科学合作的中介作用。一方面,科学合作是作为体现人与自然关系的科研生产力中主体要素的科研主体合作,具有科研生产力的属性;另一方面,科学合作又是反映科研活动中人与人关系的特定科研生产关系的组成部分,又具有科研生产关系的属性。科学合作之所以影响科学活动发展,就在于科学合作具有科研生产力和科研生产关系的双重属性,扮演着科研生产力联接科研生产关系的中介桥梁作用,能够同时履行影响科研生产力和科研生产关系的双重功能。
在对科学合作方式及其功能的研究中,运用科学计量学的多种方法,展示出科学合作的动力因素,剖析主要动力因素及其互动关系,探讨科学合作的主要结构形式及其影响,并对科研机构内外科学合作方式与特征进行了计量研究,从而展现出作为科研生产关系的科学合作方式的多样性;同时,对科学合作方式与科研生产力之间关系进行量化分析,研究当代科学前沿主要领域国际合作方式与科学能力的关系,分析科学前沿国际合作的方式和动因,揭示科学合作方式对科学产出能力的影响,表明不同的科学合作方式会影响并导致科研生产力的不同功能。
作为对具体学科领域科学合作的研究,我们选取国际纳米科技领域的科学合作状况作为研究对象。首先从科学家、机构、国家、学科四个方面对纳米科技领域科学合作状况进行计量分析,探讨该领域科学合作对科研绩效的促进作用。然后借助网络分析方法考察国际纳米科技领域的科学合作状况,展现出科学合作在纳米科技活动中的绝对优势
In today's big science ages, scientific collaboration is increasingly becoming the main quomodo of science research and the main way of developing big science and resolving global problems as the globalizing development of science and technology and as the buildup of analysis and synthesis trend in science itself development. All kinds of domestic and overseas organizations and institutions participate in collaborative research in new modes and new ideas. Scientific collaboration plays an important role in cohering creative thought, getting scientific information, sharing resource, shaping talents with compounding ability in new period, realizing striding development and obtaining the breakthrough in important scientific fields. Just under the background, regarding scientific collaboration as research object, we study its essential law, explore its happening motive, investigate its evolving patterns, show its activity scale from the levels of district, organization and subject, survey the main field, section and subject where it happens. As a research example, we explore the status of collaborative research in nanotechnology field.In this study, we survey the essence of collaboration and the meaning of scientific collaboration firstly. Under the guidance of Marxian theory of productivity and relations of production, and the theory of science productivity and relations of science production in Scientific Capacity of Society, Politics of Science and Institutional Science Studies, we put forward the double functions and double attributions of scientific collaboration under the background of big science. Scientific collaboration is not only the integration model of all the scientific research productivity factors, but also a foundation and precondition of the relations of production. The relations of scientific collaboration are realized in the progress of productivity developing, and it is the social relationship among all the productivity factors and relationship among scientifico in science field. Science collaboration is not only as the collaboration among science producers who are the main body of scientific research, but also as the special relations of production in the science activity. Scientific collaboration is the bridge and tie between science productivity and the relations of science production.Then we analyze quantitatively the method of scientific collaboration and the motivation which leads to scientific collaboration and the problems which happened in the progress of scientific collaboration. Using the method of word frequency analysis, we show the motivation factors of scientific collaboration and dissect the different influence according to the time changing. Co-occurrence analysis is done to the mutul funcation of the motivation
factor. And we also study the main structure of the scientific collaboration and the model of scientific collaboration of research institution. At the same time we study the function of research productivity of scientific collaboration and its method. Using content analysis method, we investigate the attribution of research productivity of scientific collaboration and effect on research achievement. We study the model of scientific collaboration on improvement of research productivity and enhance the quality of research production. At the same time we study quantitatively the status of intersection and interdisciplinary scientific collaboration.As a case of scientific collaboration, we review the status of scientific collaboration in nanotechnology. We analyze the general level from the four facets of scientist, institution, country and subject and the improvement to research achievement by citation analysis. Using the method of network analysis we show the characteristic of network in nanotechnology. Our main aim is trying to find the whole law and model of scientific collaboration and to put forward some valuable information for policy-makers and manager in nanotechnology research.
论文首先探讨了合作的本质和科学合作的涵义,在马克思主义生产力和生产关系理论以及科学能力学、政治科学学、制度科学学有关科研生产力与科研生产关系理论指导下,探究了科学合作的双重属性和双重功能,提出科学合作的中介作用。一方面,科学合作是作为体现人与自然关系的科研生产力中主体要素的科研主体合作,具有科研生产力的属性;另一方面,科学合作又是反映科研活动中人与人关系的特定科研生产关系的组成部分,又具有科研生产关系的属性。科学合作之所以影响科学活动发展,就在于科学合作具有科研生产力和科研生产关系的双重属性,扮演着科研生产力联接科研生产关系的中介桥梁作用,能够同时履行影响科研生产力和科研生产关系的双重功能。
在对科学合作方式及其功能的研究中,运用科学计量学的多种方法,展示出科学合作的动力因素,剖析主要动力因素及其互动关系,探讨科学合作的主要结构形式及其影响,并对科研机构内外科学合作方式与特征进行了计量研究,从而展现出作为科研生产关系的科学合作方式的多样性;同时,对科学合作方式与科研生产力之间关系进行量化分析,研究当代科学前沿主要领域国际合作方式与科学能力的关系,分析科学前沿国际合作的方式和动因,揭示科学合作方式对科学产出能力的影响,表明不同的科学合作方式会影响并导致科研生产力的不同功能。
作为对具体学科领域科学合作的研究,我们选取国际纳米科技领域的科学合作状况作为研究对象。首先从科学家、机构、国家、学科四个方面对纳米科技领域科学合作状况进行计量分析,探讨该领域科学合作对科研绩效的促进作用。然后借助网络分析方法考察国际纳米科技领域的科学合作状况,展现出科学合作在纳米科技活动中的绝对优势
In today's big science ages, scientific collaboration is increasingly becoming the main quomodo of science research and the main way of developing big science and resolving global problems as the globalizing development of science and technology and as the buildup of analysis and synthesis trend in science itself development. All kinds of domestic and overseas organizations and institutions participate in collaborative research in new modes and new ideas. Scientific collaboration plays an important role in cohering creative thought, getting scientific information, sharing resource, shaping talents with compounding ability in new period, realizing striding development and obtaining the breakthrough in important scientific fields. Just under the background, regarding scientific collaboration as research object, we study its essential law, explore its happening motive, investigate its evolving patterns, show its activity scale from the levels of district, organization and subject, survey the main field, section and subject where it happens. As a research example, we explore the status of collaborative research in nanotechnology field.In this study, we survey the essence of collaboration and the meaning of scientific collaboration firstly. Under the guidance of Marxian theory of productivity and relations of production, and the theory of science productivity and relations of science production in Scientific Capacity of Society, Politics of Science and Institutional Science Studies, we put forward the double functions and double attributions of scientific collaboration under the background of big science. Scientific collaboration is not only the integration model of all the scientific research productivity factors, but also a foundation and precondition of the relations of production. The relations of scientific collaboration are realized in the progress of productivity developing, and it is the social relationship among all the productivity factors and relationship among scientifico in science field. Science collaboration is not only as the collaboration among science producers who are the main body of scientific research, but also as the special relations of production in the science activity. Scientific collaboration is the bridge and tie between science productivity and the relations of science production.Then we analyze quantitatively the method of scientific collaboration and the motivation which leads to scientific collaboration and the problems which happened in the progress of scientific collaboration. Using the method of word frequency analysis, we show the motivation factors of scientific collaboration and dissect the different influence according to the time changing. Co-occurrence analysis is done to the mutul funcation of the motivation
factor. And we also study the main structure of the scientific collaboration and the model of scientific collaboration of research institution. At the same time we study the function of research productivity of scientific collaboration and its method. Using content analysis method, we investigate the attribution of research productivity of scientific collaboration and effect on research achievement. We study the model of scientific collaboration on improvement of research productivity and enhance the quality of research production. At the same time we study quantitatively the status of intersection and interdisciplinary scientific collaboration.As a case of scientific collaboration, we review the status of scientific collaboration in nanotechnology. We analyze the general level from the four facets of scientist, institution, country and subject and the improvement to research achievement by citation analysis. Using the method of network analysis we show the characteristic of network in nanotechnology. Our main aim is trying to find the whole law and model of scientific collaboration and to put forward some valuable information for policy-makers and manager in nanotechnology research.
引文
[1] Beaver D Deb, Rosen R. Studies in scientific collaboration. Part Ⅰ-The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics. 1978, 1: 65-84.
[2] 夏禹龙,刘吉,冯之浚.科学学基础.北京:科学出版社,1983.
[3] Price D J de Solla. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press,
[4] Meadow A J. Scientific collaboration and status, in: communication in science. London: Butterworths pr., 1974.
[5] Zuckerman H. Patterns of name ordering among authors of scientific papers. American
[6] 刘云,常青.中国基础研究国际合作的科学计量测度与评价.管理科学学报,2001,1:37-47.
[7] Glanzel W, Czerwon H J. A new methodological approach to bibliography coupling and its application to national, regional and institutional level. Scientometrics, 1996, 2: 195-221.
[8] 侯珏,胡小元.从《美国国家科学院院刊》论文的合著情况看九十年代科学合作研究的发展趋势.情报学报,1997,4:312-318.
[9] Smith M. The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American Psychologist, 1985, 13: 596-599
[10] Hudson J. Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1996, 11: 153-158.
[11] McDowell J M, Melvin M. The determinants of coauthorship: analysis of the economics rature. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1983, 2: 155-160.
[12] Heck, J L, Zaleski P A. Trends in economic journai literature: 1956-89. Atlantic Economic Journal, 1991, 19 (4): 27-32.
[13] Beaver D, Rosen R. Studies in scientific collaboration part Ⅱ-scientific coauthorship, research productivity and visibility in the french scientific elite, 1799-1830. Scientometrics, 1979 a(1): 133-149.
[14] Beaver D, Rosen R. Studies in scientific collaboration: part Ⅲ-professionalization the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1979, b(1): 231-245.
[15] Edge D. Quantitative measures of communication in science: a critical review. History of Science. 1979, 17: 102-134.
[16] Stokes T D, Hareley J A. Co-authorship, social structure and influence within Specialities. Social Studies of Science) 1989, 19: 101-125.
[17] Osubo Y, Miquel J F, Frigoletto L et al. Structure of international collaboration in science: typology of countries through multivariate technique using a link indicator.Scientometrics. 1992,25:321-351.
[18] Hagstrom W 0. The scientific community. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1965.
[19] Frame J D, Carpenter M P. International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science. 1979,9:481-487.
[20] Gordon M D. A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship,scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication. Scientometrics. 1980,2:193-210.
[21] Katz J S. Bibliometric assessment of intranational university-university collaboration: [D. Phil, thesis]. Brighton, UK: Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, 1993
[22] Kraut R, Egido C. Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Word.Portland, Oregon, 1988.
[23] Zitt M, Bassecoular Elise. S&T networks and bibliometrics:the case of international scientific collaboration. 4th Congress on Proximity Economics: Proximity, Networks and Co-ordination. 2004.
[24] Lotka A J. The Frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy of Science. 1926,16:317-323.
[25] Hodder P. Limits to collaborative authorship in science publishing. Journal of Research Communications Studies. 1979/1980, 2:169.
[26] Pao M. L. Co-authorship and productivity. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Sciences. 1980, 17:279-289.
[27] Pao M. L. Co-authorship as communication measure. Library Research. 1981, 2:327-338
[28] Price D De Solla, Beaver D de B. Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist. 1966, 21:1011-1018.
[29] Nudelman A E, Landers C E. The failure of 100 divided by 3 to equal 33~1/3. The American Sociologist. 1972, 7:9.
[30] Lawani S M. Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research. Scientometrics. 1986, 9:13-25.
[31] Crane D. Invisible college. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
[32] Goffman W, Warren K S. Scientific information systems and the principle of selectivity.New York: Praeger pr.1980.
[33] Narin F, Whitlow E S. Measurement of scientific cooperation and coauthorship in CEC-related areas of science, office for official publications of the european communities.Luxembourg, Report EUR 12900, 1990.
[34] Havemann F. Collaboration and productivity of west-german biomedical researchers 1980 - 84 and 14 years later. NISTADS International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Science & Technology Indicators: Aspects of Collaboration and The Second COLLNET Meeting, New Delhi,India, 2001,2,20-25.
[35] Harande Y I. Author productivity and collaboration: an investigation of the relationship using the literature of technology. Libri.2001, 51(2): 124-127.
[36] Smith M. The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American Psychologist. 1958, 13:596-599.
[37] Balog C. Multiple authorship and author collaboration in agricultural research publications. Journal of Research Communication Studies. 1979/80, 2:159-169.
[38] Meadows A J, Connor J G 0. Bibliographic statistics as a guide to growth points in science. Science Studies. 1971,1:95-99.
[39] Merton R K. The Ambivalence of Scientists, in N. Kaplan (ed.). Science and Society. Rand McNally & CO., 1965.
[40] Subramanyam K. Bibiliometric studies of research collaboration: a review. Journal of Information Science. 1983,6:35.
[41] Frame J D, Carpenter M P. International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science. ,Vol, 9: 481-497.
[42] Luukkonen Terttu etc. Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology, and Human Values. 1992,17 (1):101-126.
[43] Subramanyam K. Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: a review. Journal of Information Science. 1983, 6:33-38.
[44] Egghe L. Theory of collaboration and collaborative measures. Information Processing & Management. 1991,27:177-202.
[45] Luukkonen T, Ti jssen R J W, Persson 0 et al. The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics.1993, 28(1):15-36.
[46] Widhalm C, Toplnik M, Kopcsa A et al. Evaluating patterns of co-operation: application of a bibliometric visualization tool to the fourth framework programme and the transport research programme. Research Evaluation. 2001,10(2): 129-140.
[47] Frame D J, Carpenter M P. International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science. 1979,9: 481-97.
[48] Gomez I, Fernandez M T, Sebastian J. Analysis of the structure of international scientific cooperation networks through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics. 1999, 44(3): 441-457.
[49] Peters H P F, Van Raan A F J. Structuring scientific activities by co-author analysis on exercise on a university faculty level. Scientometrics. 1991,20(1): 235-255.
[50] Widhalm C, Toplnik M, Kopcsa A et al. Evaluating patterns of co-operation: application of a bibliometric visualization tool to the fourth framework programme and the transport research programme. Research Evaluation. 2001, 10(2): 129-140.
[51] Chompalov I, Shrum W. Institutional collaboration in science: a typology of technological practice. Science, Technology & Human Values. 1999, 24(3): 338-372.
[52] Schubert A, Braun T. International collaboration in the sciences, 1981-1985. Scientometrics. 1990, 19(1-2): 3-10.
[53] Moed H F, Bruin R E DE, Nederhof A J et al. International scientific co-operation and awareness within the european community: problems and perspectives. Scientometrics. 1991, 21(3): 291-311.
[54] Noyons Ed C M,Moed H F,Van Raan F J.文献计量学用于评价研究的新进展:绩效分析与映射方法的整合.梁立明,朱凌译.科研评价与大学评价.北京:红旗出版社,2001.
[55] Kretchmer H. A New Model of Scientific collaboration, part 1. theoretical approach. Scientometrics. 1999, 46(3): 501-518.
[56] Kretschmer H. Coauthorship networks of invisible colleges and institutionalized communities. Scientometrics. 1994, 30(1): 363-369.
[57] Kretschmer H. Patterns of behavior in coauthorship network in invisible colleges. Scientometrics. 1997, 40(3): 579-591.
[58] Kundra R, Kretchmer H. A new model of scientific collaboration, part 2. collaboration patterns in indian medicines. Scientometrics. 1999, 46(3): 519-528.
[59] Russell J M. The Increasing role of international cooperation in science and technology research in mexico. Scientometrics. 1995, 34(1): 45-61.
[60] Lewison G, Fawcett-James A, Kessler C. Latin american scientific output 1986-1991 and international co-authorship patterns. Scientometrics. 1993, 27(3): 317-336.
[61] 梁立明,朱凌,侯长虹.我国跨省区科学合作中的马太效应与地域倾向.自然辩证法通讯,2002,2:42-45.
[62] Ouan H, Anabel F, Wellman B. How does the internet affect social capital? 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2002.
[63] Finholt A, Thomas N, Gary M. Olson. From laboratories to collaboratories: a new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychological Science. 1997, 8: 28-36.
[64] Eileen A G, Liebscher P, Denman D. Factors that influence the use of electronic networks by science and engineering faculty at small institutions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1996, 47: 146-58.
[65] Galimberti C, Ignazi S, Vercesi P et al. Communication and cooperation in networked environments: an experimental analysis. Cyberpsychology and Behavior. 2001, 4: 131-146.
[66] Koku, Emmanuel F, Wellman B. Scholarly networks as learning communities: the case of technet in sasha barab and rob kling (eds). Designing Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[67] Wayne E B. Three-dimensional block models. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 1986, 12: 191-223.
[68] Newman M E. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS, 2001, 98 (2): 404-409.
[69] Barabasi A L, Jeonga H, Neda Z et al. Physica A, 2002, 3(11): 590-614.
[70] Kretschmer H. Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks and visibility on the web. Scientometrics. 2004, 60 (3): 409-420.
[71] Otte E, Rousseau R. Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 2002, 28(6): 443-455.
[72] Newman M E J. Scientific collaboration networks, i. Network construction and fundamental results, Phys Rev E. 2001, 64: 016-131.
[73] Newman M E J. Scientific collaboration networks. Ⅱ. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Phys Rev E. 2001, 64: 016-132.
[74] Egghe L, Rousseau R. A measure for the cohesion of weighted networks. J. Amer. Soci. Info. Sci. Tech. 2003, 54: 193-202.
[75] 刘杰,陆君安.一个小型科学合作复杂网络及其分析.复杂系统与复杂性科学.2004,3:56-62.
[76] 何阅,张培培,许田等.一个科学合作网的双粒子图自适应演化模型.物理学报.2004,6:1710-1715.
[77] D.普赖斯.小科学,大科学.宋剑耕,戴振飞译.小科学,大科学.北京:世界科学出版社,1982.D.
[78] 赵红州.科学能力学引论.北京:科学出版社,1984.
[79] 刘则渊.基于科学计量学的制度科学学.科研评价与大学评价.北京:红旗出版社,2001.
[80] 包昌火.情报研究方法论.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1991.
[81] 赵德顺.信息学方法论.http://zhenyuan.sdedu.net/2004.
[82] Paisley W. The future of bibliometrics. Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics. Sage Publications, 1990.
[83] Peters H P F, Hartmann D, Van Raan A F J. Monitoring advances in chemical engineering, in: L. Egghe & R. Rousseau edited, Informetrics87/88. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., 1988.
[84] http://www.stcsm.gov.cn/news/. 2003.12.4
[85] 梁立明,侯长虹.情报学家对科学的关注与解读(Ⅰ)—情报学家关注科学的视角.情报学报.2002,6:656-663.
[86] 谈蔓延.关于竞争与合作关系的哲学思考.广东社会科学.2000,4:71-75.
[87] 马克思恩格斯选集(第四卷).北京:人民出版社,1972.
[88] 马克思恩格斯选集(第十卷).北京:人民出版社,1972.
[89] Katz J. S, Martin B R. What is research collaboration? Research Policy. 1997, 26: 1-18.
[90] Cronin B. Invisible colleges and information transfer: a review and commentary with particular reference to the social science. Journal of Documentation. 1982, 38(3): 212-236.
[91] Heffner A G. Funded research, multiple authorship and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics. 1981, 3: 5-12.
[92] Luukkonen T, Tijseen R, Persson 0 et al. The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics. 1993, 28: 15-36.
[93] 马克思恩格斯选集.(第一卷).北京:人民出版社,1980.
[94] 张闻天.关于生产关系的两重性问题.当代思潮.1995,2:3-15.
[95] 赵红州.论科研生产关系.中国社会科学.1996.1:17-30.
[96] 马克思恩格斯选集.第二十六卷(Ⅰ).北京:人民出版社,1980.
[97] 马克思.政治经济学批判大纲(草稿).第三分册.北京:人民出版社.1963.
[98] 赵红州,蒋国华.在科学交叉处探索科学——从科学学到科学计量学.北京:红旗出版社,2003.
[99] 钱学森.关于建立和发展马克思主义的科学学的问题.科研管理.1980,创刊号.
[100] 赵红州.论科研生产关系与我国科研体制改革问题.科研管理.1996,2:41-45.
[101] 赵红州,蒋国华.在科学交叉处探索科学——从科学学到科学计量学.北京:红旗出版社,2003.
[102] 姜春林.漫漫求索之路,景致这边独好——介评《在科学交叉处探索科学——从科学学到科学计量学》.情报杂志.2004.2:118-120.
[103] Liu Zeyuan. On scientometrics-based institutional science studies. Proceedings of the Second Berlin Workshop on Scientometrics and Informetrics: Collaboration in Science and in Technology and The First COLLNET Meeting. Germany, 2000.
[104] 马克思恩格斯全集.第二十五卷.北京:人民出版社,1974.
[105] 马克思.资本论.第一卷.北京:人民出版社,1975.
[106] 克兰著.无形学院——知识在科学共同体中的扩散.刘珺珺,顾昕,王德禄译.北京:华夏出版社,1988.
[107] Katz J. S, Martin B R. What is research collaboration? Research Policy. 1997, 26: 1-18.
[108] Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators: Assessment and Monitoring of Science and Technological developments. Leiden, The Netherlands, 24-27 May 2000.
[109] Beaver D de B. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrice. 2001, 52(3): 365-377.
[110] Sooho L, Bozeman B. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Manuscript under Review at Social Studies of Science, 2004.
[111] Whittaker J. Creativety and conformity in science: titles, keywords and co-word analysis, social studies of science. 1989, 19: 473-496.
[112] Callon M, Law J, Rip A. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. The MacMillan Press Ltd, 1986.
[113] Raan van A FJ, Tijssen R J W. The neural net of neural network research, an exercise in bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 1993, 26: 169-192.
[114] Whittaker J. Creativity and conformity in science: titles, keywords and co-word analysis. Social Studies of Science. 1989, 19: 473-496.
[115] 敖光辉.桫椤群落种群间联结性研究.四川师范大学学报(自然科学版).1999,5:559-566.
[116] 戎嘉余,李荣玉,尼(?)库尔科夫.亚洲志留纪Llandovery世腕足类生物地理分析.古生物学报.1995,4:428-453.
[117] Van Raan A F J, Tijssen R J W. The neural net of neural network research. An exercise in bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 1993, 23: 169-192.
[118] Hagstrom WO. The scientific community. New York: Basic books, Inc., 1965.
[119] Cole J R, Zuckerman n. The Productivity Puzzle: Persistence and change in Patterns of Publication of Men and Women Scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, A Research Journal Women in Science. Volume 2. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI PRESS, 1984.
[120] 刘珺珺.科学社会学.上海:上海人民出版社,1990.
[121] 托马斯.库恩著.必要的张力.纪树生等译.福州:福建人民出版社,1981.
[122] Wulf W A.The collaboratory opportunity.Science.1993,26(13):854-855.
[123] 秦健.美国“合作实验室”的发展及其对我国科技政策的启示.科技导报.1995,11:21-22.
[124] De Solla Price, D and Beaver D. Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist. 1966, 21: 1011-1018
[125] Miranda Lee Pao. Collaboration in computational musicology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1982, 33(1): 38-43
[126] Pravdic N, Oluic-Vukovic V. Dual approach to multiple arthorship in the study of collaboration/scientific output relationship. Scientometrics. 1986, 10: 259-280.
[127] Gordon M D. A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication. Scientometrics. 1980, 2: 193-210.
[128] Nudelman A E, Landers C E. The failure of 100 divided by 3 to equal 33~1/3. The American Sociologist. 1972, 7: 9.
[129] Havemann F. Collaboration and productivity of West-German biomedical researchers 1980-84 and 14 years later. NISTADS International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Science & Technology Indicators: Aspects of Collaboration and The Second COLLNET Meeting, New Delhi, India, 2001, 2, 20-25.
[130] Harande, Y I. Author productivity and collaboration: An investigation of the relationship using the literature of technology. Libri. 2001, 51(2): 124-127.
[131] Landry R, Traore N, Godin B. An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. Higher Education. 1996, 32: 283-301.
[132] Frank F M, Catherina A. F. Independence and cooperation in research: the motivations and costs of collaboration. Journal of Higher Education. 1984, 55: 347-359.
[133] Melin. G. Pragmatism and self-organization research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 2000, 29: 31-40.
[134] Lehman H C. Age and achievement. Princeton University Press, 1953.
[135] Pelz D, Frank M A. Scientists in organizations: productive climate for research and development. Institute for Social Research. Michigan. Ann Arbor. 1976.
[136] Bayer A E, Jeffrey E D. Career age and research professional activities of academic scientists. Journal of Higher Eudcation. 1977, 48: 259-282.
[137] Levin S, Stephan P E. Research productivity over the life cycle: evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review. 1991, 81: 114-132.
[138] Fox M F. Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity in science, In: ZUCKERMAN, H. et al., (Eds), The Outer Circle, New York, W. W. Norton. 1991.
[139] Wray K. The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science. 2002, 69: 150-168.
[140] Beaver D. Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority?Scientometrics. 2004, 60(3): 399-408.
[141] Harsanyi, M. A. Multiple authors, multiple problems bibliometrics and the study of scholarly collaboration-a literature review. Library & Information Science Research, 15(4), 325-354.
[142] 许超.美国的国际科技合作.全球科技经济瞭望、2003,9:52-53.
[143] 李建峰.德国的国际科技合作.全球科技经济瞭望,2003,11:31-32.
[144] 华强.日本的国际科技合作.全球科技经济瞭望,2003,10:41.
[145] 李真.印度的国际科技合作.全球科技经济嘹望,2003,10:44-46.
[146] 戴艳军.中国国际科技合作的现状与对策.科学学与科学技术管理.2001,12:20-23.
[147] 王续琨.交叉科学结构论.大连:大连理工大学出版社,2003.
[148] 刘仲林.跨学科学导论.杭州:浙江教育出版社,1990.
[149] 维纳.控制论.北京:科学出版社,1960.
[150] 吴述尧.科学发展与科技政策.中国基础科学.2004,4:32-36.
[151] Feynman R P. There's plenty of room at the bottom. Engineering and Science. 1960, 2: 69-73.
[152] Krummenacker M, Lewis J. Prospects in nanotechnology. Proceedings from the First General Conference on Nanotechnology: Development, Applications, and Opportunities. 1992.
[153] 高思田,徐毅等.纳米技术——人类社会发展过程中一个新的里程碑.中国计量:2001,5:12-14.
[154] 纳米论文被引用数排名.http://www.chinainfo.gov.cn/data/200112/1_20011219_25271.html.
[155] Donald J, Beaver de B. Patterns of co-authorship: statistical, philosophical, and socioolgical implications. Procedings of ISSI, 2005, 727-730.
[156] 鲁白.怎样在国际权威杂志发表论文.光明日报.2000,7,24.
[157] Kretschmer H. Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the web. Scientometrics, 2004, 60(3): 409-420.
[158] Braun T.科学计量学指标:32国自然科学文献与引文影响的比较,分析.赵红州等译.北京:科 学出版社,1989.
[159] Zuckerman H.科学界的精英——美国的诺贝尔奖金获得者.周叶谦,冯世则译.北京:商务印书馆,1979.
[160] Broad W,Wade N.背叛真理的人们——科学界的弄虚作假.朱进宁,方玉珍译.北京:科学出版社,1988.
[161] 李醒民.学人超脱和自律是学科建设的根基.自然辩证法研究,2002,12:65.
[2] 夏禹龙,刘吉,冯之浚.科学学基础.北京:科学出版社,1983.
[3] Price D J de Solla. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press,
[4] Meadow A J. Scientific collaboration and status, in: communication in science. London: Butterworths pr., 1974.
[5] Zuckerman H. Patterns of name ordering among authors of scientific papers. American
[6] 刘云,常青.中国基础研究国际合作的科学计量测度与评价.管理科学学报,2001,1:37-47.
[7] Glanzel W, Czerwon H J. A new methodological approach to bibliography coupling and its application to national, regional and institutional level. Scientometrics, 1996, 2: 195-221.
[8] 侯珏,胡小元.从《美国国家科学院院刊》论文的合著情况看九十年代科学合作研究的发展趋势.情报学报,1997,4:312-318.
[9] Smith M. The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American Psychologist, 1985, 13: 596-599
[10] Hudson J. Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1996, 11: 153-158.
[11] McDowell J M, Melvin M. The determinants of coauthorship: analysis of the economics rature. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1983, 2: 155-160.
[12] Heck, J L, Zaleski P A. Trends in economic journai literature: 1956-89. Atlantic Economic Journal, 1991, 19 (4): 27-32.
[13] Beaver D, Rosen R. Studies in scientific collaboration part Ⅱ-scientific coauthorship, research productivity and visibility in the french scientific elite, 1799-1830. Scientometrics, 1979 a(1): 133-149.
[14] Beaver D, Rosen R. Studies in scientific collaboration: part Ⅲ-professionalization the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1979, b(1): 231-245.
[15] Edge D. Quantitative measures of communication in science: a critical review. History of Science. 1979, 17: 102-134.
[16] Stokes T D, Hareley J A. Co-authorship, social structure and influence within Specialities. Social Studies of Science) 1989, 19: 101-125.
[17] Osubo Y, Miquel J F, Frigoletto L et al. Structure of international collaboration in science: typology of countries through multivariate technique using a link indicator.Scientometrics. 1992,25:321-351.
[18] Hagstrom W 0. The scientific community. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1965.
[19] Frame J D, Carpenter M P. International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science. 1979,9:481-487.
[20] Gordon M D. A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship,scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication. Scientometrics. 1980,2:193-210.
[21] Katz J S. Bibliometric assessment of intranational university-university collaboration: [D. Phil, thesis]. Brighton, UK: Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, 1993
[22] Kraut R, Egido C. Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Word.Portland, Oregon, 1988.
[23] Zitt M, Bassecoular Elise. S&T networks and bibliometrics:the case of international scientific collaboration. 4th Congress on Proximity Economics: Proximity, Networks and Co-ordination. 2004.
[24] Lotka A J. The Frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy of Science. 1926,16:317-323.
[25] Hodder P. Limits to collaborative authorship in science publishing. Journal of Research Communications Studies. 1979/1980, 2:169.
[26] Pao M. L. Co-authorship and productivity. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Sciences. 1980, 17:279-289.
[27] Pao M. L. Co-authorship as communication measure. Library Research. 1981, 2:327-338
[28] Price D De Solla, Beaver D de B. Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist. 1966, 21:1011-1018.
[29] Nudelman A E, Landers C E. The failure of 100 divided by 3 to equal 33~1/3. The American Sociologist. 1972, 7:9.
[30] Lawani S M. Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research. Scientometrics. 1986, 9:13-25.
[31] Crane D. Invisible college. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
[32] Goffman W, Warren K S. Scientific information systems and the principle of selectivity.New York: Praeger pr.1980.
[33] Narin F, Whitlow E S. Measurement of scientific cooperation and coauthorship in CEC-related areas of science, office for official publications of the european communities.Luxembourg, Report EUR 12900, 1990.
[34] Havemann F. Collaboration and productivity of west-german biomedical researchers 1980 - 84 and 14 years later. NISTADS International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Science & Technology Indicators: Aspects of Collaboration and The Second COLLNET Meeting, New Delhi,India, 2001,2,20-25.
[35] Harande Y I. Author productivity and collaboration: an investigation of the relationship using the literature of technology. Libri.2001, 51(2): 124-127.
[36] Smith M. The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American Psychologist. 1958, 13:596-599.
[37] Balog C. Multiple authorship and author collaboration in agricultural research publications. Journal of Research Communication Studies. 1979/80, 2:159-169.
[38] Meadows A J, Connor J G 0. Bibliographic statistics as a guide to growth points in science. Science Studies. 1971,1:95-99.
[39] Merton R K. The Ambivalence of Scientists, in N. Kaplan (ed.). Science and Society. Rand McNally & CO., 1965.
[40] Subramanyam K. Bibiliometric studies of research collaboration: a review. Journal of Information Science. 1983,6:35.
[41] Frame J D, Carpenter M P. International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science. ,Vol, 9: 481-497.
[42] Luukkonen Terttu etc. Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology, and Human Values. 1992,17 (1):101-126.
[43] Subramanyam K. Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: a review. Journal of Information Science. 1983, 6:33-38.
[44] Egghe L. Theory of collaboration and collaborative measures. Information Processing & Management. 1991,27:177-202.
[45] Luukkonen T, Ti jssen R J W, Persson 0 et al. The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics.1993, 28(1):15-36.
[46] Widhalm C, Toplnik M, Kopcsa A et al. Evaluating patterns of co-operation: application of a bibliometric visualization tool to the fourth framework programme and the transport research programme. Research Evaluation. 2001,10(2): 129-140.
[47] Frame D J, Carpenter M P. International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science. 1979,9: 481-97.
[48] Gomez I, Fernandez M T, Sebastian J. Analysis of the structure of international scientific cooperation networks through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics. 1999, 44(3): 441-457.
[49] Peters H P F, Van Raan A F J. Structuring scientific activities by co-author analysis on exercise on a university faculty level. Scientometrics. 1991,20(1): 235-255.
[50] Widhalm C, Toplnik M, Kopcsa A et al. Evaluating patterns of co-operation: application of a bibliometric visualization tool to the fourth framework programme and the transport research programme. Research Evaluation. 2001, 10(2): 129-140.
[51] Chompalov I, Shrum W. Institutional collaboration in science: a typology of technological practice. Science, Technology & Human Values. 1999, 24(3): 338-372.
[52] Schubert A, Braun T. International collaboration in the sciences, 1981-1985. Scientometrics. 1990, 19(1-2): 3-10.
[53] Moed H F, Bruin R E DE, Nederhof A J et al. International scientific co-operation and awareness within the european community: problems and perspectives. Scientometrics. 1991, 21(3): 291-311.
[54] Noyons Ed C M,Moed H F,Van Raan F J.文献计量学用于评价研究的新进展:绩效分析与映射方法的整合.梁立明,朱凌译.科研评价与大学评价.北京:红旗出版社,2001.
[55] Kretchmer H. A New Model of Scientific collaboration, part 1. theoretical approach. Scientometrics. 1999, 46(3): 501-518.
[56] Kretschmer H. Coauthorship networks of invisible colleges and institutionalized communities. Scientometrics. 1994, 30(1): 363-369.
[57] Kretschmer H. Patterns of behavior in coauthorship network in invisible colleges. Scientometrics. 1997, 40(3): 579-591.
[58] Kundra R, Kretchmer H. A new model of scientific collaboration, part 2. collaboration patterns in indian medicines. Scientometrics. 1999, 46(3): 519-528.
[59] Russell J M. The Increasing role of international cooperation in science and technology research in mexico. Scientometrics. 1995, 34(1): 45-61.
[60] Lewison G, Fawcett-James A, Kessler C. Latin american scientific output 1986-1991 and international co-authorship patterns. Scientometrics. 1993, 27(3): 317-336.
[61] 梁立明,朱凌,侯长虹.我国跨省区科学合作中的马太效应与地域倾向.自然辩证法通讯,2002,2:42-45.
[62] Ouan H, Anabel F, Wellman B. How does the internet affect social capital? 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2002.
[63] Finholt A, Thomas N, Gary M. Olson. From laboratories to collaboratories: a new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychological Science. 1997, 8: 28-36.
[64] Eileen A G, Liebscher P, Denman D. Factors that influence the use of electronic networks by science and engineering faculty at small institutions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1996, 47: 146-58.
[65] Galimberti C, Ignazi S, Vercesi P et al. Communication and cooperation in networked environments: an experimental analysis. Cyberpsychology and Behavior. 2001, 4: 131-146.
[66] Koku, Emmanuel F, Wellman B. Scholarly networks as learning communities: the case of technet in sasha barab and rob kling (eds). Designing Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[67] Wayne E B. Three-dimensional block models. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 1986, 12: 191-223.
[68] Newman M E. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS, 2001, 98 (2): 404-409.
[69] Barabasi A L, Jeonga H, Neda Z et al. Physica A, 2002, 3(11): 590-614.
[70] Kretschmer H. Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks and visibility on the web. Scientometrics. 2004, 60 (3): 409-420.
[71] Otte E, Rousseau R. Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 2002, 28(6): 443-455.
[72] Newman M E J. Scientific collaboration networks, i. Network construction and fundamental results, Phys Rev E. 2001, 64: 016-131.
[73] Newman M E J. Scientific collaboration networks. Ⅱ. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Phys Rev E. 2001, 64: 016-132.
[74] Egghe L, Rousseau R. A measure for the cohesion of weighted networks. J. Amer. Soci. Info. Sci. Tech. 2003, 54: 193-202.
[75] 刘杰,陆君安.一个小型科学合作复杂网络及其分析.复杂系统与复杂性科学.2004,3:56-62.
[76] 何阅,张培培,许田等.一个科学合作网的双粒子图自适应演化模型.物理学报.2004,6:1710-1715.
[77] D.普赖斯.小科学,大科学.宋剑耕,戴振飞译.小科学,大科学.北京:世界科学出版社,1982.D.
[78] 赵红州.科学能力学引论.北京:科学出版社,1984.
[79] 刘则渊.基于科学计量学的制度科学学.科研评价与大学评价.北京:红旗出版社,2001.
[80] 包昌火.情报研究方法论.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1991.
[81] 赵德顺.信息学方法论.http://zhenyuan.sdedu.net/2004.
[82] Paisley W. The future of bibliometrics. Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics. Sage Publications, 1990.
[83] Peters H P F, Hartmann D, Van Raan A F J. Monitoring advances in chemical engineering, in: L. Egghe & R. Rousseau edited, Informetrics87/88. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., 1988.
[84] http://www.stcsm.gov.cn/news/. 2003.12.4
[85] 梁立明,侯长虹.情报学家对科学的关注与解读(Ⅰ)—情报学家关注科学的视角.情报学报.2002,6:656-663.
[86] 谈蔓延.关于竞争与合作关系的哲学思考.广东社会科学.2000,4:71-75.
[87] 马克思恩格斯选集(第四卷).北京:人民出版社,1972.
[88] 马克思恩格斯选集(第十卷).北京:人民出版社,1972.
[89] Katz J. S, Martin B R. What is research collaboration? Research Policy. 1997, 26: 1-18.
[90] Cronin B. Invisible colleges and information transfer: a review and commentary with particular reference to the social science. Journal of Documentation. 1982, 38(3): 212-236.
[91] Heffner A G. Funded research, multiple authorship and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics. 1981, 3: 5-12.
[92] Luukkonen T, Tijseen R, Persson 0 et al. The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics. 1993, 28: 15-36.
[93] 马克思恩格斯选集.(第一卷).北京:人民出版社,1980.
[94] 张闻天.关于生产关系的两重性问题.当代思潮.1995,2:3-15.
[95] 赵红州.论科研生产关系.中国社会科学.1996.1:17-30.
[96] 马克思恩格斯选集.第二十六卷(Ⅰ).北京:人民出版社,1980.
[97] 马克思.政治经济学批判大纲(草稿).第三分册.北京:人民出版社.1963.
[98] 赵红州,蒋国华.在科学交叉处探索科学——从科学学到科学计量学.北京:红旗出版社,2003.
[99] 钱学森.关于建立和发展马克思主义的科学学的问题.科研管理.1980,创刊号.
[100] 赵红州.论科研生产关系与我国科研体制改革问题.科研管理.1996,2:41-45.
[101] 赵红州,蒋国华.在科学交叉处探索科学——从科学学到科学计量学.北京:红旗出版社,2003.
[102] 姜春林.漫漫求索之路,景致这边独好——介评《在科学交叉处探索科学——从科学学到科学计量学》.情报杂志.2004.2:118-120.
[103] Liu Zeyuan. On scientometrics-based institutional science studies. Proceedings of the Second Berlin Workshop on Scientometrics and Informetrics: Collaboration in Science and in Technology and The First COLLNET Meeting. Germany, 2000.
[104] 马克思恩格斯全集.第二十五卷.北京:人民出版社,1974.
[105] 马克思.资本论.第一卷.北京:人民出版社,1975.
[106] 克兰著.无形学院——知识在科学共同体中的扩散.刘珺珺,顾昕,王德禄译.北京:华夏出版社,1988.
[107] Katz J. S, Martin B R. What is research collaboration? Research Policy. 1997, 26: 1-18.
[108] Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators: Assessment and Monitoring of Science and Technological developments. Leiden, The Netherlands, 24-27 May 2000.
[109] Beaver D de B. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrice. 2001, 52(3): 365-377.
[110] Sooho L, Bozeman B. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Manuscript under Review at Social Studies of Science, 2004.
[111] Whittaker J. Creativety and conformity in science: titles, keywords and co-word analysis, social studies of science. 1989, 19: 473-496.
[112] Callon M, Law J, Rip A. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. The MacMillan Press Ltd, 1986.
[113] Raan van A FJ, Tijssen R J W. The neural net of neural network research, an exercise in bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 1993, 26: 169-192.
[114] Whittaker J. Creativity and conformity in science: titles, keywords and co-word analysis. Social Studies of Science. 1989, 19: 473-496.
[115] 敖光辉.桫椤群落种群间联结性研究.四川师范大学学报(自然科学版).1999,5:559-566.
[116] 戎嘉余,李荣玉,尼(?)库尔科夫.亚洲志留纪Llandovery世腕足类生物地理分析.古生物学报.1995,4:428-453.
[117] Van Raan A F J, Tijssen R J W. The neural net of neural network research. An exercise in bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 1993, 23: 169-192.
[118] Hagstrom WO. The scientific community. New York: Basic books, Inc., 1965.
[119] Cole J R, Zuckerman n. The Productivity Puzzle: Persistence and change in Patterns of Publication of Men and Women Scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, A Research Journal Women in Science. Volume 2. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI PRESS, 1984.
[120] 刘珺珺.科学社会学.上海:上海人民出版社,1990.
[121] 托马斯.库恩著.必要的张力.纪树生等译.福州:福建人民出版社,1981.
[122] Wulf W A.The collaboratory opportunity.Science.1993,26(13):854-855.
[123] 秦健.美国“合作实验室”的发展及其对我国科技政策的启示.科技导报.1995,11:21-22.
[124] De Solla Price, D and Beaver D. Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist. 1966, 21: 1011-1018
[125] Miranda Lee Pao. Collaboration in computational musicology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1982, 33(1): 38-43
[126] Pravdic N, Oluic-Vukovic V. Dual approach to multiple arthorship in the study of collaboration/scientific output relationship. Scientometrics. 1986, 10: 259-280.
[127] Gordon M D. A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication. Scientometrics. 1980, 2: 193-210.
[128] Nudelman A E, Landers C E. The failure of 100 divided by 3 to equal 33~1/3. The American Sociologist. 1972, 7: 9.
[129] Havemann F. Collaboration and productivity of West-German biomedical researchers 1980-84 and 14 years later. NISTADS International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Science & Technology Indicators: Aspects of Collaboration and The Second COLLNET Meeting, New Delhi, India, 2001, 2, 20-25.
[130] Harande, Y I. Author productivity and collaboration: An investigation of the relationship using the literature of technology. Libri. 2001, 51(2): 124-127.
[131] Landry R, Traore N, Godin B. An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. Higher Education. 1996, 32: 283-301.
[132] Frank F M, Catherina A. F. Independence and cooperation in research: the motivations and costs of collaboration. Journal of Higher Education. 1984, 55: 347-359.
[133] Melin. G. Pragmatism and self-organization research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 2000, 29: 31-40.
[134] Lehman H C. Age and achievement. Princeton University Press, 1953.
[135] Pelz D, Frank M A. Scientists in organizations: productive climate for research and development. Institute for Social Research. Michigan. Ann Arbor. 1976.
[136] Bayer A E, Jeffrey E D. Career age and research professional activities of academic scientists. Journal of Higher Eudcation. 1977, 48: 259-282.
[137] Levin S, Stephan P E. Research productivity over the life cycle: evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review. 1991, 81: 114-132.
[138] Fox M F. Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity in science, In: ZUCKERMAN, H. et al., (Eds), The Outer Circle, New York, W. W. Norton. 1991.
[139] Wray K. The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science. 2002, 69: 150-168.
[140] Beaver D. Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority?Scientometrics. 2004, 60(3): 399-408.
[141] Harsanyi, M. A. Multiple authors, multiple problems bibliometrics and the study of scholarly collaboration-a literature review. Library & Information Science Research, 15(4), 325-354.
[142] 许超.美国的国际科技合作.全球科技经济瞭望、2003,9:52-53.
[143] 李建峰.德国的国际科技合作.全球科技经济瞭望,2003,11:31-32.
[144] 华强.日本的国际科技合作.全球科技经济瞭望,2003,10:41.
[145] 李真.印度的国际科技合作.全球科技经济嘹望,2003,10:44-46.
[146] 戴艳军.中国国际科技合作的现状与对策.科学学与科学技术管理.2001,12:20-23.
[147] 王续琨.交叉科学结构论.大连:大连理工大学出版社,2003.
[148] 刘仲林.跨学科学导论.杭州:浙江教育出版社,1990.
[149] 维纳.控制论.北京:科学出版社,1960.
[150] 吴述尧.科学发展与科技政策.中国基础科学.2004,4:32-36.
[151] Feynman R P. There's plenty of room at the bottom. Engineering and Science. 1960, 2: 69-73.
[152] Krummenacker M, Lewis J. Prospects in nanotechnology. Proceedings from the First General Conference on Nanotechnology: Development, Applications, and Opportunities. 1992.
[153] 高思田,徐毅等.纳米技术——人类社会发展过程中一个新的里程碑.中国计量:2001,5:12-14.
[154] 纳米论文被引用数排名.http://www.chinainfo.gov.cn/data/200112/1_20011219_25271.html.
[155] Donald J, Beaver de B. Patterns of co-authorship: statistical, philosophical, and socioolgical implications. Procedings of ISSI, 2005, 727-730.
[156] 鲁白.怎样在国际权威杂志发表论文.光明日报.2000,7,24.
[157] Kretschmer H. Author productivity and geodesic distance in bibliographic co-authorship networks, and visibility on the web. Scientometrics, 2004, 60(3): 409-420.
[158] Braun T.科学计量学指标:32国自然科学文献与引文影响的比较,分析.赵红州等译.北京:科 学出版社,1989.
[159] Zuckerman H.科学界的精英——美国的诺贝尔奖金获得者.周叶谦,冯世则译.北京:商务印书馆,1979.
[160] Broad W,Wade N.背叛真理的人们——科学界的弄虚作假.朱进宁,方玉珍译.北京:科学出版社,1988.
[161] 李醒民.学人超脱和自律是学科建设的根基.自然辩证法研究,2002,12:65.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |