Science and Research Collaboration between Australia and China 2011 Contents
Science and Research Collaboration between Australia and China
Download 2.3 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Executive Summary
- 2.1 Socio-economic context
- 2.1.1 Key economic, social and environmental challenges
- 2.2 Global science and research context
- 3 Science and Research in Australia and China
- 3.1 Science and research systems
- 3.2 Research organisations
- 3.4 Measures and indicators
- Total and relative investment
- RD by performance sector
- 3.4.3 Publications (including fields of study)
Science and Research Collaboration between Australia and China2011ContentsScience and Research Collaboration between Australia and China 2 2011 2 Contents 3 Executive Summary 5 Key Findings 7 1 Introduction 9 2 External Environment 10 2.1 Socio-economic context 10 2.1.1 Key economic, social and environmental challenges 12 2.2 Global science and research context 13 3 Science and Research in Australia and China 18 3.1 Science and research systems 18 3.1.1 China 18 3.1.2 Australia 20
3.2.1 China 22 3.2.2 Australia 23
3.3.1 China 25 3.3.2 Australia 25
3.4.1 Investment 27 3.4.2 Human resources 32 3.4.3 Publications (including fields of study) 35 3.4.4 Patents 44
4.1.1 Collaboration between individuals 48 4.1.2 Collaboration between agencies and institutions 48 4.1.3 Collaboration between universities 49 4.1.4 Cooperation between governments 50
4.2.1 Australia and China are already important collaboration partners 52 4.2.2 Long term relationships 53 4.2.3 Effect of student exchanges 54 4.2.4 Commercialisation links still limited 55
4.3.1 Important note on the data 57 4.3.2 Growth in joint publications 57 4.3.3 Joint publications by subject area 61 4.3.4 Citation impact of joint publications 64 4.3.5 Institutional distribution of joint publications 66 4.3.6 Top ten Australian institutions collaborating with China 68 4.3.7 Differing focus of research areas 69 4.3.8 Citation impact compared to the world average 74
Mapping of subject areas between Web of Science and ANZSRC 83 Appendix B 91 Mapping of subject areas between Web of Science and Scopus 91 Executive SummaryChina has become one of Australia’s most important international partners. China is now Australia’s largest trading partner. More students come to Australia from China than from any other country. Chinese is the second most widely spoken language in Australia after English. Science and research collaboration has grown to feature prominently in the relationship and is a consistently positive area of bilateral relations. From early individual contacts in the 1960s, China and Australia have become prolific partners in scientific publications, with a wide range of institutions involved and the full spectrum of the sciences under investigation. The next frontier for joint engagement is innovation, applying and commercialising the outcomes of research for mutual benefit to the wider communities of both countries and beyond. This report has been prepared by the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) in collaboration with The Centre for International Economics (CIE) to assist agencies, institutions and individuals to make informed decisions about future science and research engagement with China. It provides a comparative analysis of policy frameworks and investments in science and research in Australia and China, an assessment of the scale and focus of current science and research collaboration between our countries and information about opportunities and challenges for future science and research collaboration between Australia and China. It also highlights the opportunities for institutions and businesses to increase collaboration in innovation and commercialisation. The economies and populations of Australia and China (Section 2) offer a strong contrast. China is a developing country rapidly rising to superpower status at the core of the world’s most economically dynamic region. Australia is a developed middle power on the rim of that region. However, these two disparate countries are strongly linked by trade and personal ties, with China now Australia’s top export destination, import source and source of overseas students. The global science, research and innovation system is dominated by a few large countries including the USA, UK, China, Germany, France and Japan, with several smaller but highly innovative European nations such as the Netherlands and Switzerland important in areas such as patenting. Despite its relatively small population and economy, Australia is amongst the top twenty nations in the world in overall measures of research expenditure, research workforce, scientific publications output and patent registrations. Australia also performs well per capita in most of those measures of science and research. With only 0.3% of the world’s population, Australia now produces 3% of the world’s scientific publications, and this share has actually risen in the last decade despite a fast growing global output. China has just under 20% of world population, and after fast growth in scientific output now accounts for 9% of publications, second in the world. The science and research systems in Australia and China (Section 3) differ greatly in scale, investment, and organisation. While Australia has more science and research investment per capita and as a share of the total economy, investment in China is growing very rapidly, both in absolute terms and as a share of GDP. Science and research strengths, relative to the rest of the world, also vary. On average, the influence of Australian science and research (as measured by citation rates for publications) is higher than the world average and rising slowly, while Chinese citation rates are below the world average and improving steadily. International science and research collaboration (Section 4) is becoming increasingly important for strengthening capacity and impact, meeting costs of critical infrastructure, and addressing complex and long-term strategic challenges. Science and research collaboration is not always easy, especially when long distances and cultural differences need to be overcome, but international collaboration is nevertheless growing. Collaboration in science and research also brings benefits beyond the academic sphere, with improved cross-cultural understanding, personal and institutional linkages, and increased capacity of economies to absorb and utilise innovations from abroad. Science and research collaboration between Australia and China is already significant. The depth and range of Australia-China science and research collaboration is growing steadily, and has matured over the 30 years since the signing of the treaty on science cooperation to move far beyond aid and development oriented initiatives to a rich set of mutually beneficial collaborations between individuals, teams and organisations. Science and research organisations foster collaboration through a variety of processes and funding sources. Key characteristics of successful Australia-China science and research collaborations have been identified from a combination of bibliometric analysis, literature review and stakeholder consultation. This analysis highlights the importance of investing in long-term relationships, including the importance of today’s students to maintaining relationships into the future. It also shows the increasing attractiveness of China’s rapidly expanding science and research system, the importance of government in China’s science system and the limited development to date of research commercialisation ventures. Publications and citation data indicate that the subject focus of collaboration reflects the areas of strength of each country, as represented by the subject distribution of joint publications and those for each country separately. In terms of joint research publications, China is the third most important partner country for Australia and Australia is the sixth most important partner country for China. The citation impact of Australia’s joint publications with China varies by subject area. There is a higher impact for joint publications than for Australia’s overall publications output in a small majority of subject areas. A wide range of organisations collaborate across a wide range of areas. However, a small number of Australian institutions (six universities, plus CSIRO) and Chinese institutions (Chinese Academy of Sciences, plus ten universities) account for more than half of the current collaboration (as measured by joint publications over the last decade). The top ten Australian institutions collaborating with China generally produce joint publications with higher citations than the overall Australian output of publications in a subject area. Most of these institutions have also seen an improvement in the citation rate of joint publications over time. The final section of this report (Section 5) highlights future challenges and opportunities for governments, research institutions and innovative businesses as they undertake various activities associated with Australia-China science and research collaboration. Expanding less developed channels of collaboration, such as commercialisation of research outcomes, will boost the innovative capability of both countries and lead the transformation of industries, economies and societies for a sustainable future. Key FindingsAustralia and China have very different economic structures, but are closely linked by trade, with China now Australia's largest trading partner. China and Australia both face some similar policy challenges that are reflected in the focus of their government effort and the focus of their research. These challenges are particularly evident in global and local environmental issues, meeting the healthcare needs of aging populations and deciding future economic directions to build and sustain prosperity in a changing world. In today’s globalised system, the science and research systems of all major countries are interlinked to varying extents. Most leading scientific nations produce a quarter to half their publications through international collaboration. Australia and China have been increasing their share of world scientific output since 1981, China spectacularly so. While the USA and Europe still lead total research spending and output, China has become one of the world's leading scientific countries. Although a smaller nation, Australia outperforms both China and the OECD average on a per capita basis. Both China and Australia currently spend a smaller share of GDP on R&D than the OECD average, however, this gap is shrinking due to increasing investments by both countries. China's research system has a strong role for central government direction and strategic priority setting, while Australia's system places more emphasis on collaboration between a range of agencies focused on different parts of the research and innovation process. In both China and Australia, the majority of research in spending terms is carried out by industry. Research is also performed by universities and public institutions, including a major national research agency, in both cases. Both countries have prioritised developing a national innovation system to use science and research to build prosperity and address key challenges, within their own specific contexts. In both China and Australia, the shares of R&D investment funded and performed by business (including state-owned enterprises) are large and increasing, while the corresponding shares for government are decreasing. Australia invests comparatively more of its spending in basic research. The Australian higher education sector currently has a more prominent role in the research system than in China. It performs a larger share of research and employs a larger share of researchers. Australia and China have both increased their own shares of world publications and citations over time, with China increasing more rapidly. International collaboration is significant for both countries broadly, with about half of Australian publications and a quarter of Chinese publications having an international co-author. Australia and China are each a significant partner for the other in this collaboration. The United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada are extremely important partners for both. Australia and China generally do not specialise in the same research areas, relative to the rest of the world. This complementarity in research strengths may provide incentives to develop collaborative relationships, especially in areas that are also of strategic global importance, such as sustainable agriculture and energy. Australia currently has a higher per capita share of the world's triadic patent families than China, but China has a higher share in absolute terms, and its share is growing rapidly while Australia’s is falling. Science and research cooperation between Australia and China has strengthened over time, moving from individual- and organisation-based approaches to formal government-to-government collaboration and joint funding. Although a wide range of top-down and bottom-up mechanisms are available to support collaboration between China and Australia, the key role of China's central government in its research system makes government-level linkages an important part of successful collaboration. Establishing a long-term relationship based on mutual trust is vital. The large number of Chinese students studying in Australia has the potential to develop networks that assist future collaborative efforts. In particular, Chinese alumni of Australian research organisations are a key avenue for developing the relatively small number of commercialisation collaborations between Australia and China. The research collaboration relationship between Australia and China is already strong and continues to grow, with rapid increases in the number of joint publications, both in absolute terms and as shares of national and world output. The fields with the highest proportions of Australia-China joint publications have been in the natural sciences and engineering, such as mathematical sciences, technology, chemical sciences, physical sciences, and earth sciences. There is less Australia-China collaboration in the humanities and social sciences, even relative to the smaller national outputs in these fields. Collaboration with China often improves the impact of publications, with joint publications in more than half of the subject areas examined having an average citation impact higher than that for all Australian publications in the subject area. In both countries, the majority of joint publications are produced by a small number of top institutions. These institutions typically have specific areas of collaborative research strength, where they achieve high shares of joint publications compared to other institutions and these areas of strength tend to change over time. Australian agencies, research institutions and businesses face common, as well as different, challenges and opportunities as they plan and implement science and research related collaboration with China. Given the importance of the bilateral relationship, and the significant role of bilateral science and research collaboration within it, there is great potential for increasing mutual benefits even further, particularly in the less developed area of utilisation and commercialisation of research outcomes. In addition to directly supporting the activities of publicly funded research agencies, Governments also play a key facilitation role in promoting Australia-China science and research collaboration. Due to the breadth of the bilateral science and research relationship, research institutions have the opportunity to play to their own particular strengths and develop relationships focused on their own priorities. Strategic choice of partners in Australia and China, cultural awareness and a patient focus on long term aspirations will foster the most sustainable relationships and the greatest benefits over time. Significant opportunities exist for business to create innovation-driven partnerships with Chinese organisations for a variety of purposes. Chinese partners offer both a source and a testing ground for potentially profitable innovations, as well as a source of entrepreneurial capital. 1 IntroductionInternational collaboration is a long-standing characteristic of science and research activity. Today a number of factors make such collaboration more important than ever:1 the growing importance of understanding global phenomena the increasing international dispersion of expertise, resources and information the costs of major research infrastructure, such that no one nation can build and maintain all the infrastructure it needs to conduct the breadth and depth of research required, and the demonstrated benefits of collaboration, in terms of impact, efficiency, knowledge sharing and capacity building, which leverage a country’s own science and research expenditure to provide greater return on investment. The relative costs of collaboration have reduced as a result of the increasing mobility of scientists and the more widespread use of modern ICT, allowing researchers to exchange information and organise international research networks. International collaboration, however, is not without its costs and challenges. People, organisations and countries must balance the benefits of collaboration with the loss of some control, added administrative complexity, the need to modify or adjust national priorities, funding plans and schedules, and the potential difficulties of staff working abroad. Australia’s science and research connections with the rest of the world are substantial and add significantly to the quality and impact of our overall effort. As in most developed countries, the Australian Government actively encourages international collaboration in order to ensure a continuing flow of such benefits. China is a key focus for Australia’s science and research collaboration efforts, already generating advances in areas ranging from medical research, disaster management, biodiversity, water conservation, and food security to wireless communications and new materials for manufacturing. The strategic significance of this collaboration for both countries was symbolised recently by the agreement between the two governments to establish a new Australia-China Science and Research Fund.2 The Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) plays an important role in driving a strategic science and research agenda with major knowledge producers such as China, and facilitating a systematic response, across Australia’s science and research system, to increasing engagement
The report draws on national and international data and reports about various aspects of science and research in Australia and China, and emerging trends in science and research systems internationally. It draws extensively on analysis commissioned from the Centre for International Economics (CIE) by DIISRTE’s predecessor, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR). The CIE analysis applies economic perspectives and a systems view of science and research, to highlight key features and challenges for the Australia-China science and research relationship. DIISRTE gratefully acknowledges the contribution of CIE to this report. 2 External EnvironmentThe external environment shapes the science and research systems in both countries, and collaboration between us. Both the socio-economic context in each country, and the state of science globally, are important influences. 2.1 Socio-economic context
China and Australia are very different countries in terms of their populations and economies as shown in Table 2.1. China’s population, the largest in the world, is more than 60 times that of Australia, although growing more slowly.3 Australia is considerably more urban, and has higher rates of people outside normal working age (younger or older), and outside the workforce. China’s economy is ten times larger in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms and growing much faster. Since 2010, the Chinese economy has been the world’s second largest (after the USA) in US dollar terms.4 Annual GDP growth in China has averaged 9.3% over the last 20 years, and recent growth continues to be consistent with that overall trend. Australia has an income per person nearly six times that of China. Table 2.1: Australia and China: populations and economies (2008)
Source: World Bank World Development Indicators, April 2011 update The structure of the Australian and Chinese economies shown in Table 2.2 reflects their level of development, and the abundant labour supply in China which enables a large manufacturing sector. In comparison, Australia is focused on the production of services. Manufacturing in China has traditionally been focused on low-technology labour-intensive products.6 This is changing as China moves up the value chain. The World Bank estimates that 31% of China’s manufacturing exports were high technology goods in 2009.7 Table 2.2: Australia and China: economic structure (2008)
Source: World Bank World Development Indicators April 2011 update While Australia’s total economy is service-based, Australian exports, including exports to China, are predominantly primary products, mostly minerals. More than half of Australian imports are manufactures, and the top five categories of manufactured products (of which three are high technology items) account for almost a third of Australian imports from China. Table 2.3 shows Australia’s trade (in terms of the percentage of the financial value) in merchandise and services, both overall and with China. Data for the year 2009-10 is shown, as it was the year in which China overtook Japan as Australia’s largest export market.8 The dominance of primary products in Australia’s exports, and manufactures in our imports, is clearly demonstrated. Australian exports to China are fairly consistent with Australia’s overall export pattern: the top three items (Iron ore and concentrates, Coal and Education-related travel services) are the same in both lists, though the proportions differ. However, Australian imports from China do not match the overall pattern at all: the top five items are all different, with those from China being high technology and small household items while the overall top five import items are vehicles, fuel and services. Table 2.3: Australian trade: overall and with China (2009-10)
Source: Composition of Trade Australia 2009-10, DFAT, 2010 (http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/cot-fy-2009-10.pdf) and Trade in Services Australia 2009-10, DFAT, 2011 (http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/trade-in-services-australia-2009-10.pdf). 2.1.1 Key economic, social and environmental challengesChina and Australia both face economic, social and environmental challenges that are reflected in the focus of their government effort and the focus of their research. Key challenges for Australia were reiterated recently in the Government’s 2011 Budget at a very broad level.9 Those most likely to be influenced by science and research activity include: increasing productivity—education, skills, training, science and innovation the future of the Australian economy maintaining competitive manufacturing industries linked to global supply chains population, sustainability, climate change, water and the future of our cities future directions for rural industries and rural communities a long-term national health strategy, and Australia’s future security and prosperity in a rapidly changing region and world. The CSIRO National Research Flagships and National Research Priorities provide more focused statements of the role that science and research are expected to play in solving Australia’s national challenges. Key challenges for China are identified in its Five Year Plans.10 These include the fact that further economic development will face several key constraints: imbalance between investment and consumption insufficient infrastructure, particularly in sectors like agriculture economic structures are unsuited to modern economic development low capacity for innovation, and resource and environmental constraints. Some social pressures are also areas of increasing attention by the Chinese Government, being: increasing income disparity imbalance between development in rural and urban areas – 18 million people migrate from rural to urban areas each year in China11 higher incidence of social conflicts, and healthcare, which is likely to become a priority area for China in the future.12 2.2 Global science and research context
No major country’s science and research system exists in isolation. Collaboration and competition drive research forward as each country quests for vital discoveries. Furthermore, the outcomes of research are now more accessible, and accessible more rapidly, to all researchers around the world, and thus the knowledge base on which each country can build its further research efforts is both broader and more efficient. Just as in the globalisation of economic and industrial activity, the globalisation of research has led to countries seeking to build and exploit their own distinct competitive advantages and special positions within the overall system. China is now one of the largest investors in research and development, and sources of scientific publications, in the world, while Australia is one of the most prolific producers of scientific publications per capita. Although Australia and China both devote a smaller proportion of GDP to R&D than the OECD average, both countries have been increasing this relative investment faster than the average growth in OECD countries, and hence both are approaching the OECD average.13 China is also catching up to Australia. Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) is the primary measure of financial input to the R&D system, aggregating business, government, higher education and other expenditure in a national total.14 Both the OECD and UNESCO usually report GERD in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms to account for differences in national currencies and economic strengths. Several derived measures relating to GERD, which normalise for the effect of economic and population size, are commonly used: research intensity (GERD as a percentage of GDP) GERD per capita population percentage of GERD devoted to basic research15, and percentage of GERD financed by industry (or business). Total GERD and derived measures for the world top ten (by total GERD), plus Australia and the OECD total are shown in Table 2.4. Note that, while industry rarely finances basic research, the last two measures are not strictly mutually exclusive. Note also that, according to OECD data definitions, a significant share of industry funding in China is from state-owned enterprises (SOEs) which are part of the broader public sector. In other words, the “industry” share of funding is not directly comparable between China and Australia. This caveat will apply in some degree to some other countries as well. Table 2.4: R&D Investment for Top Ten, Australia and OECD (2008)
Source: OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011-1, OECD, Paris, August 2011 (India data is for 2007, from UNESCO Science Report 2010, UNESCO, Paris, 2010). The primary measure of human resources input to the R&D system is the number of researchers in the country. Both the OECD and UNESCO usually report researcher numbers expressed in full-time equivalent (FTE) terms. China now has the world’s largest research workforce. The most useful derived measure, which normalises for the effect of population size, is researchers per thousand labour force. The breakdown of researcher numbers by the OECD categories Business Enterprise, Government and Higher Education sectors is also available for many countries.16 Total researcher numbers, the sectoral breakdowns and researchers per thousand labour force for the world top ten, Australia and the OECD are shown in Table 2.5. Table 2.5: Research Workforce for Top Ten, Australia and OECD (2008)
Source: OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011-1, OECD, Paris, August 2011 (USA data is for 2007. *figures are a composite of OECD data for 2008 (where available) and 2007 (where 2008 data not available) – thus indicative only and not official OECD figures. India data is for 2005, from UNESCO Science Report 2010, UNESCO, Paris, 2010). Scientific publications are one of the major outputs of the R&D system. Citations for these publications, as a measure of influence, are the closest quantitative proxy available to a measure of research quality. The Thomson Reuters InCitesTM database, based upon their Web of Science (WOS) database, provides data on scientific articles and reviews in selected peer-reviewed publications.17 Australia ranks higher in publications output than it does in any of the other measures considered in this section, and now produces over 3% of world publications, fully a third of China’s output.18 Important derived measures for publications are:
relative impact (citations per publication as a ratio of world average) publications per thousand population, and percentage of publications produced through international collaboration, that is, having authors from at least two different countries. Table 2.6 presents publications and citation data for the world top ten, Australia, and the OECD and world totals. Table 2.6: Scientific Publications for Top Ten, Australia, OECD and World (2008)
Source: InCitesTM, Thomson Reuters, 2010, data retrieved 19 August 2011. Population data from OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011-1, OECD, Paris, August 2011. International collaboration data from Web of ScienceTM courtesy of Thomson Reuters. While scientific publications and their citations measure academic outputs and outcomes of R&D, patents are a measure of the commercial and industrial outputs and outcomes. The OECD reports triadic patent families (TPFs) as the major measure of patenting performance, as only an applicant reasonably confident of commercial return would incur the expense of registering a TPF as opposed to a single-country patent.19 Australia and China rank lower on this measure than on the other measures considered, although China is rising rapidly.20 Note the high commercialisation performance of relatively small nations (with both population and GDP considerably smaller than Australia’s) the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland.21 Important derived measures for publications are:
percentage of world triadic patent families (registered in a year), and triadic patent families per million capita population. Table 2.7 presents triadic patent family data for the world top ten, China, Australia and the OECD total. Table 2.7: Triadic Patent Families: Top Ten, China, Australia and OECD (2008)
Source: OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011-1, OECD, Paris, August 2011 3 Science and Research in Australia and ChinaA major difference between Australia and China is the balance between central and devolved governance structures and mechanisms. These are more concentrated on central government in China than in Australia. This difference is significant, in that the way in which national directions and priorities are defined and pursued in each country inevitably depends on and reflects the respective governance structures and mechanisms. A good understanding of these differences as they pertain to science and research will assist in fostering collaboration. 3.1 Science and research systems
3.1.1 ChinaChina’s approach establishes a central role for the government in steering the quantity, quality and direction of science and research, while recognising that progress in innovation may only be accomplished if enterprises assume more prominence. It is based on a commitment to economic spillovers from government interventions, to ensure societal returns where industry otherwise ‘under-invests’. The basis of government influence is the Law of the People’s Republic of China for Science and Technology.22 This law focuses science and research on economic and social development, recognises the importance of high-tech research and high-tech industry as well as basic and applied research, and requires the State to ensure organisations and workforce are in place and able to meet the challenges set for the science and research system. China has a complex web of sub-systems and organisations making up its overall science and research system. A chart of organisations governing science and research in China is shown in Chart 3.1. In general, organisations on the left side of the chart are more focused on policy, while those on the right are more focused on funding and delivery. The central government’s guiding policy document for the promotion of science and research is the 15-year Medium to Long Term Plan for the Development of Science and Technology (the S&T Plan), issued in January 2006.23 This plan articulates the goal of China becoming an ‘innovation-oriented’ society by the year 2020. Some recent policy actions, such as increasing export rebates, reducing property transaction taxes and interest rates, will help stimulate the domestic market. In addition, a large portion of the stimulus package is expected to be invested in fixed infrastructure and human capital, and China’s research budget will increase accordingly.24 The S&T Plan sets quantitative targets for 2020, including the investment of 2.5% of GDP on R&D, reducing China’s dependence on imported technologies to 30%, improving the contribution to economic growth made by technological advances to 60%, and joining the world’s top five countries in terms of number of patents granted for domestic inventions and citations in international science papers. The plan includes several priority-setting threads (e.g. science and research areas, infrastructure), broad funding commitments, and a focus on capacity building. Regions continue to play a key role, although current regional patterns of science and research do not provide optimal links between science organisations and potential users.25 Science performance varies between regions, some of which are now larger science and research performers than most OECD countries. For instance, in 2008 Guangdong, Shandong, Shanghai and Zhejiang all had GERD of over PPP$9 billion, more than 20 out of 34 current OECD members (including Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Finland), while Jiangsu Province’s GERD of PPP$15.2 billion and Beijing Municipality’s PPP$14.4 billion GERD were higher than that of 24 current OECD members (including Sweden and the Netherlands) and not far behind Australia’s PPP$18.8 billion.26 The OECD has identified areas where governance of science and research in China can be improved, including:27 improving framework conditions for innovation (e.g. a modern system of corporate governance, antitrust laws, effective intellectual property rights protection) fostering absorptive capacity in the Chinese business sector, and strengthening organisations and mechanisms for public support of innovation (e.g. steering and funding public research institutes). Chart 3.1: Organisations governing science and research in China
Source: OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: China, OECD, Paris, 2008. NDRC is the National Development and Reform Commission 3.1.2 AustraliaIn Australia, government involvement in science and research is split between the Commonwealth and State Governments. There is an increased focus on innovation as a more encompassing concept than science and research. The Australian Government, in its overarching innovation agenda, acknowledges a wide set of roles that together influence science and research, including:28 investing directly in science and research (including major infrastructure), particularly for basic research that would not or could not be done by the private sector education investments for developing science and research capability in the workforce using its own demand for innovative products and services to stimulate science and research activity across the economy, and acknowledging its regulatory approach influences the operating environment for business and therefore business appetite for science and research investments. The Australian Government’s innovation agenda identifies system priorities spanning: the role of various funding streams, the importance of research skills, the focus on future industries (including application and commercialisation of research outputs), collaboration between research and industry, and links with the public and community sectors. These priorities are intended to guide the focus of organisations throughout the innovation system. A recent review of the National Innovation System recommended that administration of the overall system should be strengthened and streamlined to make it better at targeting national priorities, coordinating the activities of different governments, and measuring performance.29 The government has acknowledged this challenge and signalled its commitment to continuing to increase cooperation and coordination between Commonwealth agencies, in order to minimise duplication, build critical mass and promote cross-disciplinary understanding. The Australian Government’s response to the review– Powering Ideas: an Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century – recognises that the future is global. The Government has a renewed emphasis on international collaboration to build capacity, facilitate access to new knowledge, attract foreign investment, leverage domestic investment and extend Australia’s global influence. One of Australia’s seven National Innovation Priorities is for Australian researchers and businesses to be involved in more international collaborations on research and development. This is now a key feature of the national science system with the government implementing a number of significant changes across its key research agencies and flagship programs to mainstream support for international science collaboration. Governance responsibility is distributed across different public organisations, including the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE), other departments, state and territory governments, funding agencies such as the ARC and NHMRC, publicly funded research agencies such as CSIRO and the university sector. DIISRTE has highlighted the important role of governance for minimising duplication, building critical mass, and promoting cross-disciplinary understanding.30 A summary of governance mechanisms currently operating for science and research in Australia is shown in Chart 3.2. Chart 3.2: Organisations governing science and research in Australia
Source: DIISRTE 2011 Key organisation acronyms are: AIMS: Australian Institute of Marine Science ANSTO: Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation ARC: Australian Research Council BoM: Bureau of Meteorology CCI: Coordination Committee on Innovation COAG: Council of Australian Governments CSIRO: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation CSTACI: Commonwealth, State and Territory Advisory Council on Innovation DSTO: Defence Science and Technology Organisation GA: Geoscience Australia NHMRC: National Health and Medical Research Council PMSEIC: Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council RRDCs: Rural Research and Development Corporations
There are both similarities and significant differences in the make-up of organisations involved in science and research in Australia and China. For both countries, public sector research involves many universities, one large government-owned research organisation and several smaller, specialised national and sub-national government research organisations. Increasing focus on links between public sector research and industry is also common to both countries. On the other hand, the sheer number of organisations, and their staff, in China dwarfs that of Australia. A much higher proportion of Australia’s scientific publications are co-authored than is true for China’s publications, but the partner countries involved are predominantly the same, led by the USA in both cases.31 3.2.1 ChinaA general summary of organisations involved in China’s science and research system is provided in a recent OECD review of China’s innovation policy.32 Several key features were noted, regarding public sector research downsizing, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), learned academies, university reforms, business sector research and industrial and high technology parks. The public sector research system has been downsized, rebalanced in favour of universities and modernised through reforms started in the mid-1980s. This includes a push towards a ‘market’ model (e.g. requirements to complement government funding with funding from other sources) and an increasing focus on commercialisation; The key public sector research organisation in China, CAS, is one of the world’s largest research organisations, with around 50,000 staff, and recent reforms have reduced its research institutes and sharpened their focus:
new funding and management mechanisms for research institutes under the CAS umbrella are leading to a better balance between responsiveness to dispersed science end-users and coherence in addressing national priorities. CAS currently directly manages 117 institutions across China, including 3 botanical gardens, 94 other research institutes, 5 universities and supporting organisations, 12 management organisations and 3 other organisations. There are 26 legal entities affiliated with CAS and 22 CAS invested enterprises.33 CAS has been involved in more joint publications with Australian authors than any other organisation outside Australia, in every year since 2006. In 2009, CAS was involved in 371 joint publications with Australian authors, 16% of all Australia-China joint publications that year.34 a considerable number of China’s big science facilities are managed by CAS, including the Beijing Electron-Positron Collider (BEPC), the Heavy Ion Facility in Lanzhou (HIRFL), the Hefei Synchrotron Radiation Facility, the Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility (SSRF), the Super-conducting Tokamak, the Laser Fusion Device, the Large Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST), the Southwest China Wildlife Germplasm Bank and the Long-wave Timing Receiver. The Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) is a national and independent organisation composed of elected eminent members in the community of engineering and technological sciences of China. Unlike CAS, CAE does not have its own research institutions. Its missions are to initiate and conduct strategic studies, provide consultancy services, and promote engineering and technological sciences in China. Academies are also associated with other sectors, such as the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Science and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; The university sector has expanded its research activities over the last decade, and is the central pillar of Chinese industry-science relationships: while about 700 universities engage in research, the top 50 account for about two thirds of total R&D expenditure in the university sector. a total of 23 Chinese universities are ranked in the world top 500 for 2011 in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU, also known as the Shanghai Jiaotong rankings), with Tsinghua in the 151-200 band, Peking, Fudan, Nanjing, Shanghai Jiaotong, Zhejiang, and the University of Science and Technology of China (a university under CAS jurisdiction) all in the 201-300 band, China Agricultural, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Shandong, Sichuan and Sun Yat-Sen in the 301-400 category and Beijing Normal, Beijing Aeronautics and Astronautics, Dalian University of Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Jilin, Lanzhou, Nankai, Southeast, Wuhan, Xiamen and Xi’an Jiaotong in the 401-500 band.35 deepening scientific capability remains a challenge, so government policy has concentrated increased research funding to universities considered to have the greatest potential for developing world-class research. two key initiatives for strengthening universities are Project 211 (strengthening approximately 100 universities and key colleges for the 21st century) and Project 985 (to develop several top universities to be world-class).36 The business sector now accounts for over two thirds of total Chinese R&D (up from less than 40% in 1990), but a significant proportion of this increase has resulted from the conversion of some public research institutes into state-owned business entities: overall science and research performance (e.g. patents) of domestic businesses in China remains low by international standards (for instance, note China’s very low TPFs per capita in Table 2.6), however there is rapid growth in TPF outputs and a growing number of globally visible high-technology firms (for example Huawei, TCL and Lenovo); and foreign firms are increasingly establishing R&D centres in China. Industrial parks set up by Chinese governments at various levels have offered preferential policies to promote the development and adoption of high and new technologies in industrial upgrading and regional development: 83 national level hi-tech industrial development zones, overseen by the Ministry of Science and Technology, 90 national level economic and technological development zones, overseen by the Ministry of Commerce, and many provincial and municipal level industrial parks. 3.2.2 AustraliaWhile industry carries out nearly two thirds of Australia’s total R&D, public sector research organisations (especially universities, CSIRO and State government agencies) play a critical role. Public sector researchers account for 77% of Australia’s basic research effort and 44% of Australia’s applied research effort.37 Key features of Australia’s university sector include: the 39 universities account for most public sector research (62% of Commonwealth, State, Territory and Local Government R&D expenditure) and also do most of the research training in Australia. organisational autonomy for universities means that their aggregate contribution to Australia’s science and research system reflects individual priorities and opportunities throughout the university sector. the Group of 8 (Melbourne, ANU, UQ, Sydney, UNSW, UWA, Monash and Adelaide) lead Australian university research ratings. All achieved average scores of 3.5 (3 indicates world standard, 4 indicates above world standard and 5 indicates well above world standard) or higher in the ERA 2010 assessment of Australia’s university research quality.38 The first four are in the top 100 in the ARWU 2011 rankings, UWA in the 102-150 band, Monash and UNSW in the 151-200 band and Adelaide in the 201-300 band.39 other significant groupings of Australian universities are the Australian Technology Network (ATN: Curtin, UniSA, RMIT, UTS and QUT) and the Innovative Research Universities Australia group (IRU Australia: Flinders, Griffith, La Trobe, Murdoch, Newcastle, James Cook and Charles Darwin). Of these, Flinders, James Cook and Newcastle are in the 301-400 band, and Curtin, Griffith, La Trobe and UTS in the 401-500 band in ARWU 2011. Ungrouped (or ‘non-aligned’) universities in the top 500 are Macquarie in the 201-300 band, Tasmania in the 301-400 band, and Swinburne and Wollongong in the 401-500 band.40 Governments play a key role in providing funding and priority-setting for the research system, as well as directly managing research institutions. Some of the more prominent agencies and programs include: various publicly funded research agencies (PFRAs) manage government science and research schemes, programs and investments (30% of Commonwealth, State, Territory and Local Government R&D expenditure), ranging from highly targeted and specific initiatives to multi-agency vehicles. CSIRO, with 6,500 staff located over more than 50 sites around Australia and overseas, is one of the largest and most diverse scientific organisations in the world. CSIRO’s research is performed by 13 divisions and 9 National Research Flagships. DIISRTE provides eligible Australian higher education providers block grants for research and research training, through a number of performance-based schemes. The research block grants (RBG) are allocated according to performance based formula and are independent of funding for specific research projects, programs, or fellowships. DIISRTE also manages system-wide priority setting, including through the National Research Priorities, the National Innovation Priorities, the Research Workforce Strategy and the Strategic Roadmap for Australian Research Infrastructure. the Australian Research Council (ARC) is responsible for managing the National Competitive Grants Program, developing and implementing the Excellence in Research for Australia initiative, and providing advice to the government on research matters. The ARC provides funding across all disciplines, however, clinical medical and dental research is only supported under the Future Fellowship. the NHMRC provides funding for all areas of research relevant to human health and medicine. the CRC program supports end-user driven research partnerships to address major challenges requiring long-term collaboration between researchers and end-users for periods up to 10 years (in exceptional circumstances CRCs may be able to apply for further funding up to a maximum of 15 years in total). state, territory and local governments carry out research aligned to various portfolio goals, but are usually minority investors within each state (relative to funding from the Federal Government and industry). Business funding is now about two thirds of Australia’s total R&D investment, although a large component of this is the R&D tax concession arrangements from the Commonwealth Government. Business R&D expenditure is heavily concentrated in large companies and a few industries. in 2008-09, A$12 billion of the A$17 billion business R&D expenditure (over 70%) was in enterprises employing 200 or more persons, and another A$3 billion (over 17%) in enterprises employing 20 to 199 persons. 41 over A$4 billion (25%) was performed by each of the manufacturing and mining sectors in 2008-09, while the professional, scientific and technical services sector accounted for A$2.5 billion (15%) and the finance and insurances services sector for A$2 billion (12%).42 3.3 Priorities
3.3.1 ChinaScience and research priorities are included in the Five Year Plans. The 12th Five Year Plan (approved by the Chinese parliament in March 2011) identified the following priorities: speed up development of major national science and research projects, and cultivate emerging strategic industries promote the transfer and industrialisation of science and research findings strengthen agricultural science and research innovation and promote development of rural areas develop science and research that can improve people’s livelihood strengthen basic research and cutting-edge technology to enhance continuous innovation deepen reform of science and research management promote the building of a national innovation system in a comprehensive manner, and strive to create a favourable environment for innovation strengthen capacity building of innovation-related human resources enhance grass-roots technology innovation and service capabilities, and expand cooperation and exchanges, enhance the level of internationalisation. Some key cross-cutting areas of focus are also worth noting – ‘indigenous innovation’, ‘reform’, ‘opening up’ and ‘talents’. At the time this plan was released, the Chinese Minister of Science and Technology Dr Wan Gang is quoted as saying, ‘… there will be a priority on the development of science and research, from a strategic perspective. China will give full scope to the role of science in promoting, and guiding, economic transformation’.43 The 12th Five Year Plan reinforces key programs from earlier plans, including the National High-Tech Research and Development Program44 (‘863 Program’) and National Basic Research Program45 (‘973 Program’). 3.3.2 AustraliaScience and technology priorities in Australia are defined in several ways (in addition to governance priorities – as outlined in section 2.2.3 above). The Federal Government has identified ‘national research priorities’ — an environmentally sustainable Australia, promoting and maintaining good health, frontier technologies for building and transforming Australian industries, and safeguarding Australia. These priorities represent areas of particular social, economic and environmental importance to Australia, and areas where a whole-of-government focus has the potential to improve research and broader policy outcomes. The Government has also adopted seven ‘national innovation priorities’, complementing the national research priorities, to focus the production, diffusion and application of knowledge.46 CSIRO uses National Research Flagships to drive large-scale activity addressing Australia’s national research priorities.47 There are now nine Flagships, listed in Box 3.3, with total investment to 2010-11 close to $1.5 billion48, making this program one of the largest scientific research endeavours ever undertaken in Australia.
Source: CSIRO website (http://www.csiro.au/partnerships/NRF.html) and private communications October 2011. 3.4 Measures and indicators
China has been quickly advancing in science and innovation investment and performance, although it is still behind developed countries like Australia in many aspects. Chart 3.4 compares Australia, China and the OECD average for selected indicators. These indicators are normalised, with the highest value of an indicator across OECD countries (members and observers) being set to 100. Chart 3.4: Science and innovation profile of Australia, China and OECD average
Data source: OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2010, OECD, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1781/sti_outlook-2010-en. Indicators normalised with the maximum value amongst OECD countries being 100 3.4.1 InvestmentTotal and relative investmentChart 3.5 shows that Australian gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) increased from about PPP$4.8 billion in 1992 to PPP$18.8 billion in 2008.49 China’s GERD grew at a much faster pace, from about PPP$8.8 billion in 1992 to PPP$120.8 billion in 2008.50 Although China’s GERD is higher than Australia’s in absolute terms, it is still lower in relative terms. Australia’s GERD as percentage of GDP (research intensity) increased from about 1.44% in 1992 to 2.21% in 2008, while China’s research intensity increased from 0.74% in 1992 to 1.47% in 2008. Both countries are catching up to the OECD average, which is increasingly relatively slowly. Australia’s expenditure on basic research (both pure basic and strategic basic combined) accounted for 20% of national GERD in 2008 (down from 28% in 1992), while basic research was only about 3% of China’s R&D in 2008. Australia’s basic research expenditure therefore averages about 0.4% of GDP, reaching 0.45% of GDP in 2008, compared to China’s at around 0.05% of GDP. Chart 3.6 shows research intensity for total GERD and basic research for both countries, and the OECD average for total GERD. China has been catching up in R&D expenditure per capita, from about 3% of Australia’s GERD per capita in 1992 to about 10% of Australia’s in 2008, as shown in Chart 3.7. Chart 3.5: Gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) (1992-2008)
Data source: Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011/1, OECD, Paris, 2011. Australian data only available for every second year. Chart 3.6: GERD as percentage of GDP (1992-2008)
Data source: Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011/1, OECD, Paris, 2011. Australian data only available for every second year. Chart 3.7: GERD per capita population (1992-2008)
Data source: Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011/1, OECD, Paris, 2011. Australian data only available for every second year. Funding sourcesBoth Australia and China have seen a rising share of GERD funded by industry and falling share funded by government. The share of GERD funded by industry rose from 46.3% for Australia and 57.6% for China in 2000 to 61.4% and 71.7%, respectively, in 2008. At the same time, share of government funding declined from 45.5% for Australia and 33.4% for China in 2000 to 34.9% and 23.6%, respectively, in 2008. Chart 3.8 shows the composition for both countries in selected years. As previously noted, according to OECD data definitions, a significant share of industry funding in China is from state-owned enterprises (SOEs) which are part of the broader public sector, so China’s industry share of funding is not directly comparable to Australia’s. Foreign funding accounts for a small share of total GERD for both countries, being only 1.7% for Australia and 1.2% for China in 2008. The share of funding from abroad in China has been always smaller than the share in Australia, revealing the probability that it has been relatively difficult to attract foreign funding in R&D to China despite its size. Chart 3.8: Composition of GERD by funding sources (2000, 2004 and 2008)
Data source: Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011/1, OECD, Paris, 2011. Note that the OECD data does not report any funding against the “Other National Sources” category for China, nor do the amounts reported for China add to 100%. R&D by performance sectorChart 3.9 shows which sectors carried out the R&D in Australia and China in selected years. The business sector has carried out most of the R&D in both countries, and its share in total R&D has been rising. Higher education’s share of total R&D has been fairly stable for both countries, in Australia being around a quarter of total R&D while for China the comparable figure is around 9%. Government’s share is falling in both countries. China does not report any private non-profit (PNP) sector R&D, while it is a small but important component in Australia, especially in health and medical research. Chart 3.9: Composition of GERD by performing sector (2000, 2004 and 2008)
Data source: Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011/1, OECD, Paris, 2011. 3.4.2 Human resourcesChart 3.10 shows that China’s research and development human resources have grown more rapidly than Australia’s over the past two decades. Australia had about 91,600 researchers and about 136,700 total R&D personnel51 (in full time equivalents or FTE) in 2008, increasing by 76% and 72% respectively from 1992, while China had 1.59 million researchers and 1.97 million R&D personnel in 2008, tripling the numbers since 1992. It is worth noting that China’s growth in R&D human resources has taken off in the last decade, especially after 2004. During the 1990s, China implemented rigorous reform measures in science and research, affecting the growth in the number of researchers. The science and research system was streamlined with the government funding being shifted to focus on basic science, high technology and key public utility research. This is reflected in two big drops in the number of researchers in China in 199552 and 1998, resulting in the number of researchers in 1998 reverting to little more than the level in 1992. The Australian Government includes a specific focus on human resources development within its overall governance and funding of science and research. A foundation for this is provided by the Research Workforce Strategy, which was produced by DIISR with input from a range of science and research sector stakeholders.53 Schemes targeted at workforce development include Australian Postgraduate Awards, International Postgraduate Research Scholarships, the Research Training Scheme and Future Fellowships. In relative terms, China’s total researchers per thousand employed is about one quarter of Australia’s, as shown in Chart 3.11, while China’s total R&D personnel per thousand employed is about one fifth of Australia’s. Chart 3.10: Researchers in full-time equivalents (1992-2008)
Data source: Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011/1, OECD, Paris, 2011. Australian data only available for every second year. Chart 3.11: Researchers per thousand employed (1992-2008)
Data source: Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011/1, OECD, Paris, 2011. Australian data only available for every second year. Chart 3.12 shows the sectoral distribution of researchers in 2008. The higher education sector employs about 58% of researchers in Australia. The business sector in China employs about 70% of all researchers. Chart 3.12: Researchers by sector (2008)
Data source: Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011/1, OECD, Paris, August 2011. Note that amounts do not sum to 100% in some years, due at least partly to employment of researchers in other sectors such as private non-profit. 3.4.3 Publications (including fields of study)From 1981 to 2009, Australian authors published 562,487 documents registered in Thomson Reuters InCites Global Comparisons, with an average citation rate of 15.6 cites per document, while the total number of Chinese publications was 773,779 with an average citation rate of 5.4 cites per document.54 Chart 3.13 shows the publications numbers for both countries. Australia’s shares of world publications and citations have been increasing steadily, from 2.4% and 2.5%, respectively, in 1981, to 3.2% and 4.1%, respectively, in 2009. By contrast, China’s shares have been increasing rapidly, from 0.3% of total world publications and 0.1% of total world citations in 1981, to 9.9% and 7.2%, respectively, in 2009. China overtook Australia in 2000, and is now second only to the USA in publications output. Demonstrating the growth of publications from both countries, 50% of Australia’s publications and 80% of China’s for the 29 year period available are from the final decade, 2000 to 2009.55 Chart 3.14 shows the shares of world publications for both countries. International collaboration has been increasingly important for Australian researchers, with the proportion of internationally co-authored publications rising from 25% in 1996 to 45% in 2009. For China, the proportion has remained at around 22% to 27%, although this represents a huge increase in absolute numbers (from fewer than 3,500 papers to over 30,000) due to the rapid increase in China’s publications output. Chart 3.15 shows the internationally co-authored publication rates for both countries. Table 3.16 shows the top ten collaboration partners for both countries in 2000 and 2009, which have remained fairly consistent over the decade. Chart 3.13: Australian and Chinese scientific publications (1981-2009)
Data source: InCitesTM, Thomson Reuters (2010). Global Comparisons report generated 24 August 2011. Chart 3.14: Australian and Chinese share of world publications (1981-2009)
Data source: InCitesTM, Thomson Reuters (2010). Global Comparisons report generated 24 August 2011. Chart 3.15: Australian and Chinese international collaboration (1996-2009)
Source: Web of Science courtesy of Thomson Reuters. Report generated February 2011. Table 3.16: Top ten publication partners for Australia and China (2000 and 2009)
Data source: Web of Science courtesy of Thomson Reuters. Reports generated June 2010. Research specialisationTable 3.17 reports the specialisation index (SI)56 for Australia and China for 1996 to 2009.57 The SI is an indicator of the proportional share of a subject area in a country’s total research output, relative to the area’s share of world output. An SI above 0 means a country specialises relative to the world (the area accounts for a higher proportion of the country’s output than of world output). Higher numbers indicate higher degrees of specialisation. An SI of 1 indicates the country’s highest output share compared to the world average. Values below 0 indicate low specialisation, with lower numbers indicating lower relative output and -1 the lowest relative output share. Relative to the world average, Australia’s publications are highly specialised (SI over 0.50, blue shading) in Agricultural and biological sciences, Earth and planetary sciences, Environmental science and Psychology, and somewhat specialised (SI 0.01 to 0.50) in Nursing, Economics, econometrics and finance, Immunology and microbiology, Decision sciences, Social sciences and Neuroscience. China is highly specialised in Materials science, Engineering and Energy, and somewhat specialised in Chemical engineering, Chemistry, Computer science, Physics and astronomy, Earth and planetary sciences, Mathematics and Multidisciplinary research. Therefore, Australia and China have very little overlap in research specialisation. Except in the field of Earth and planetary sciences, Australia’s intensive research fields appear to be China’s less intensive fields, and vice versa. Some areas that offer high complementarity and thus significant scope for collaboration are highlighted in green: Agricultural and Biological Sciences: Australia’s most specialised research subject area58, and a traditional area of research strength, is one of China’s less specialised areas. With current Chinese policies emphasising the need for development of sustainable agriculture to meet the twin challenges of growing population and environmental threats, this represents an area where Australia has much to offer Chinese partners. Energy: Australia’s output is of high impact (see Table 3.19), but low relative volume, as shown by the SI of -1. This may be partly due to an emphasis on applied research and experimental development rather than basic research, and commercial rather than academic outcomes. However, China specialises in this area. It is an area of extreme importance globally, and to Australia and China as major traders in energy products. Engineering: More than a third of Australia’s total GERD is spent in Engineering R&D, but mostly by industry on applied research and experimental development. It is not a specialised area for Australia but is for China. Materials Science: China is now the world’s most prolific publisher in this increasingly important and fundamental research area59, and it has China’s highest SI.60 Australia, with low volume and high impact in this area offers advantages to Chinese researchers as a niche partner. Psychology: China’s least specialised area is one of fairly high Australian specialisation. Neither country has particularly high impact in this area61, offering scope for mutual capacity development through collaboration. Table 3.17: Specialisation index for Australia and China (1996-2009)
Source: CIE calculation based on SCImago (2007) SJR Journal and Country Rank, data retrieved May 2011. Relative impact of R&DThe citation rate, or citations received per document, is one indicator of the impact and influence of publications, and thus the best available measure that provides a partial indication of research quality. It usually varies across research fields. Some fields tend to have higher citations than others. Over time, the rate also varies, as the older a publication, the more time it has been available for others to cite, and thus it has a higher citation rate. Citation practises also vary over time even within research fields. To account for these factor, the citations per document is often normalised against a reference baseline, such as the world average for a given field over a certain period. Chart 3.18 shows the relative citation impact, that is, the normalised citations per document, of Australia and China relative to the world average, for the period 1981 to 200862, from InCites Global Comparisons data. A value over 1 indicates that the country’s publications had a higher than world average citation rate, while values below 1 indicate lower than average citation impact. A relative impact of 1.1 indicates a citation rate 10% higher than the world baseline in that field in that period. Both countries experienced steady growth in relative impact only from the mid to late 1990s. This pattern is also apparent for many other countries, and may be caused by several factors, including increased international collaboration (which tends to improve citation impact). Another possible cause for a small amount of this improvement is the increased output of countries like China, India and Brazil, which despite improving quality have yet to reach impact levels equal to the developed world and thus depress the world average, elevating developed country relative impact. Note that China’s own relative impact would be slightly boosted in this fashion by its achievement of higher impact than that of India, and higher than Brazil since 2007, but it is also clear that regardless of any technical boost of this nature, the real influence, and thus most probably the quality, of China’s publications is rising faster than the world average rate of increase, allowing China to steadily close the gap on world average citation impact. Table 3.19 lists the relative citation impact of Australia and China at the subject area level, based on Scopus data from SCImago63, for the whole period 1996 to 2009, and for the two most recent five year periods as an indication of recent trends. Values over one are highlighted. Note the volatility in some fields, particularly for China which has a rapidly increasing output often from a small base. For instance, China had about 25 publications in Arts and humanities in SCImago for 1996-99, about 100 for 2000-04 and over 1,500 for 2005-09. The uncharacteristically high relative impact in 2000-04 is probably the result of a few very highly cited papers. Australia’s publications display higher than world average impact in all fields except for Decision sciences during the period 2005 to 2009. China’s publications display higher than world average impact in several fields, including Decision sciences, Dentistry, Economics, econometrics and finance, Health professions and Veterinary, during the same period. It is interesting to compare the relative impact over the period 1996 to 2009 with the specialisation index as reported in Table 3.17. Only one of Australia’s top 10 impact research fields (Earth and planetary sciences), and only four of China’s top 10 impact fields (Chemical engineering, Chemistry, Materials science and Mathematics), are research fields of national specialisation. Relative volume and impact of publications are thus neither strongly linked nor mutually exclusive. Chart 3.18: Relative Citation impact of Australia and China (1981-2008)
Data source: InCitesTM, Thomson Reuters (2010). Global Comparisons report generated 24 August 2011. Table 3.19: Relative citation impact by subject area (1996-2009)
Source: CIE calculation based on SCImago (2007) SJR Journal and Country Rank, data retrieved May 2011 3.4.4 PatentsCompared to their performance in academic outputs (publications) from R&D, both Australia and China are lagging in commercial outputs (patents).64 However, China is rapidly redressing the situation, with extremely high growth in the registration of triadic patent families (TPFs) since 2000.65 The OECD regards TPFs as a better indicator of innovation and commercial value than a single country patent due to the expense and effort involved in gaining registration, indicating the registrant’s strong expectation of subsequent commercial benefits. Australia, which experienced strong TPF growth in the 1990s, stagnated and then declined in the 2000s. Chart 3.20 shows TPF numbers in both countries. As a proportion of world TPFs, China’s growth is almost identical to its growth in total numbers. Australia’s growth is slower and its stagnation more evident, as the world total number of TPFs grew to 2006, although it declined slightly thereafter. Chart 3.21 shows share in world TPFs for both countries. On a per capita basis, China’s TPF output is still small compared to its vast population, although the rapid growth in TPF numbers in the last decade is lifting this performance. Australia, with a much smaller population growing at a higher percentage rate, has a much higher per capita TPF output but once again strong growth in the 1990s is followed by a clear stagnation and then dramatic fall in the 2000s. Chart 3.22 shows TPFs per capita population for both countries. The Australian Innovation System Report 2011 notes that: Relatively high rates of entrepreneurship (as measured by business start up rates) suggest that Australian firms have an excellent capability for identifying opportunities or problems where new solutions are required (Feature 4). Australia’s research publication rates indicate that we are above OECD average on our ability to generate knowledge. Australia also has high rates of knowledge diffusion (represented by soft technology adoption/procurement indicators) and above average rates of trademark registrations which better represents service innovation (Chapter 3). However, the opportunities acted upon tend not to result in high rates of new-to-market product innovation in Australia compared with other OECD countries, suggesting that the majority of Australian firms are adopting or modifying already existing innovations rather than creating world-first innovations. Indicators of knowledge diffusion, which rate well compared to the rest of the OECD, and low rates of patenting support this argument (Chapter 4).66 Chart 3.20: Number of triadic patent families (TPFs) (1985-2009)
Data source: Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011/1, OECD, Paris, 2011. Chart 3.21: Share of world TPFs (1985-2009)
Data source: Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011/1, OECD, Paris, 2011. Chart 3.22: TPFs per capita population (1985-2009)
Data source: Main Science and Technology Indicators 2011/1, OECD, Paris, 2011. Directory: international international -> 20th November 2013 or 4 international -> International maritime conventions international -> Media Concentration in Australia Franco Papandrea and Rodney Tiffen Introduction international -> Research report prepared for the australian communications and media authority international -> This project has been funded with support from the European Commission (226388-cp-1-2005-1-de-comenius-c21). This publication reflects the views only of the authors international -> On the human rights situation in the united states of america international -> Global Marketing Chapter 15 Global Marketing and the Digital Revolution international -> Climate: 25-40 degrees Celsius, little seasonal variation international -> This text was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 0 License without attribution as requested by the work’s original creator or licensee. Organization Download 2.3 Mb. Share with your friends:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
