The geography of Chinese science

David Emanuel Andersson; Saileshsingh Gunessee; Christian Wichmann Matthiessen; Soren Find

doi:10.1068/a130283p

The geography of Chinese science

David Emanuel Andersson, Saileshsingh Gunessee, Christian Wichmann Matthiessen, Soren Find

LUKKET: Geografi

42 Citationer (Scopus)

905 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Chinese scientific output has increased dramatically in recent years, but its internal spatial structure has received scant attention. Estimated gravity models of intercity scientific coauthorships show that there are two types of spatial political bias in China, apart from the expected mass and distance effects. Intercity coauthorships involving Beijing are more common than Beijing’s output volume and location would imply, and this Beijing bias is increasing over time. The second type of spatial political bias is greater intraprovincial collaboration than is accounted for by size and distance. The geography of Chinese science is thus not only monocentric as regards overall scientific output, but also exhibits unusually hierarchical collaboration patterns. Unlike in Europe and North America, national and regional capitals are becoming ever more important as scientific coordination centers.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Environment and Planning A
Vol/bind	46
Udgave nummer	12
Sider (fra-til)	2950-2971
Antal sider	22
ISSN	0308-518X
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1068/a130283p
Status	Udgivet - 2014

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1068/a130283p

EPA_paper_2015Indsendt manuskript, 2,42 MB

Citationsformater

@article{02dbb21b6ebd41a4a215a855ba8b92cf,

title = "The geography of Chinese science",

abstract = "Chinese scientific output has increased dramatically in recent years, but its internal spatial structure has received scant attention. Estimated gravity models of intercity scientific coauthorships show that there are two types of spatial political bias in China, apart from the expected mass and distance effects. Intercity coauthorships involving Beijing are more common than Beijing{\textquoteright}s output volume and location would imply, and this Beijing bias is increasing over time. The second type of spatial political bias is greater intraprovincial collaboration than is accounted for by size and distance. The geography of Chinese science is thus not only monocentric as regards overall scientific output, but also exhibits unusually hierarchical collaboration patterns. Unlike in Europe and North America, national and regional capitals are becoming ever more important as scientific coordination centers. ",

author = "Andersson, {David Emanuel} and Saileshsingh Gunessee and Matthiessen, {Christian Wichmann} and Soren Find",

year = "2014",

doi = "10.1068/a130283p",

language = "English",

volume = "46",

pages = "2950--2971",

journal = "Environment and Planning A",

issn = "0308-518X",

publisher = "SAGE Publications",

number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The geography of Chinese science

AU - Andersson, David Emanuel

AU - Gunessee, Saileshsingh

AU - Matthiessen, Christian Wichmann

AU - Find, Soren

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Chinese scientific output has increased dramatically in recent years, but its internal spatial structure has received scant attention. Estimated gravity models of intercity scientific coauthorships show that there are two types of spatial political bias in China, apart from the expected mass and distance effects. Intercity coauthorships involving Beijing are more common than Beijing’s output volume and location would imply, and this Beijing bias is increasing over time. The second type of spatial political bias is greater intraprovincial collaboration than is accounted for by size and distance. The geography of Chinese science is thus not only monocentric as regards overall scientific output, but also exhibits unusually hierarchical collaboration patterns. Unlike in Europe and North America, national and regional capitals are becoming ever more important as scientific coordination centers.

AB - Chinese scientific output has increased dramatically in recent years, but its internal spatial structure has received scant attention. Estimated gravity models of intercity scientific coauthorships show that there are two types of spatial political bias in China, apart from the expected mass and distance effects. Intercity coauthorships involving Beijing are more common than Beijing’s output volume and location would imply, and this Beijing bias is increasing over time. The second type of spatial political bias is greater intraprovincial collaboration than is accounted for by size and distance. The geography of Chinese science is thus not only monocentric as regards overall scientific output, but also exhibits unusually hierarchical collaboration patterns. Unlike in Europe and North America, national and regional capitals are becoming ever more important as scientific coordination centers.

U2 - 10.1068/a130283p

DO - 10.1068/a130283p

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0308-518X

VL - 46

SP - 2950

EP - 2971

JO - Environment and Planning A

JF - Environment and Planning A

IS - 12

ER -