This report identifies and analyzes the science and technology core competencies of China. The first part of the study was performed in the 2003-2004 time frame, and analyzes databases containing 2000-2003 data for China. The second part of the report was sponsored in part by ONR Global, and contains an analysis of 2005 data from China. For the first part of the study, aggregate China publication and citation bibliometrics were obtained, and manual and statistical taxonomies were generated. The manual taxonomy was based on reading a random sample of ten percent of all China records retrieved, and included many manually-assigned attributes for each record. The statistical taxonomies were based on both word/ phrase clustering and document clustering. For the second part of the study, one hierarchical research taxonomy, based on document clustering, was generated. The second hierarchical level of this research taxonomy for 2005 records contains four categories: 1) chemistry (5841 records); 2) physics/ materials (13966 records); 3) mathematics (7162 records); life sciences (7377 records). The physics/ materials category has almost three times as many records as the chemistry category, and twice the records of the mathematics category. Detailed analysis of the taxonomy allowed four representative technical topics to be identified (nanotechnology; genetics; alloys; crops), and bibliometrics analysis was performed for each topic. Use of bibliometrics (e.g., key researchers, Centers of Excellence, core journals) allowed the infrastructure of these technical areas to be identified. Two unique approaches were developed to compare characteristics of Chinaâ s science and technology output with that of other countries. First, a novel method was used to compare the impact/ quality of all of Chinaâ s research with that of two other countries, India and Australia. Second, a unique approach was used to compare Chinaâ s research investment emphases/ strategy relative to that of the USA. Chinaâ s output of research articles has expanded dramatically in the last decade. In terms of sheer numbers of research articles, especially in critical technologies (e.g., nanotechnology, energetic materials), it is among the leaders. In terms of citation impact, it was higher than India in all major categories (e.g., Physical, Environmental, Materials, and Life Sciences), but was lower than Australia in all these major categories. In terms of investment strategy relative to that of the USA, China is investing more heavily in the hard science areas that underpin modern defense and commercial activities, whereas the USA is investing more heavily in the medical, psychological, and social problem (e.g., drug use) science areas that underpin improvement of individual health and comfort.

It reports a forum held in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2004 entitled "E-Research and Supporting Cyberinfrastructure: A Forum to Consider the Implications for Research Libraries & Research Institutions". The forum, spurred by developments in e-science and e-research, including a recent National Science Foundation report and the launch of a related study on cyberinfrastructure in the humanities, brought together representatives from over 75 different organizations.

Mathematics research in India, as reflected by papers indexed in Mathsci 1998, is quantified and mapped. Wherever possible, the findings are compared with mathematics research in India in 1994. Overall, compared to 1994, there were 30% fewer publications from India in 1998 - from 1391 in 1994 to 971 in 1998. Of these, 864 papers had appeared in 273 journals published from 3 countries. Among subfields, Quantum theory topped the list with 14 papers, followed by Statistics 85 papers; Economics, operations research, programming, games 55 papers; Fluid mechanics 45 papers; and Relativity and gravitational theory 45 papers. In all, researchers from 143 institutions located in 89 Indian cities/ towns belonging to 21 states/union territories had contributed at least one paper in 1998. ISI, Calcutta, leads the list with 65 papers, followed by TIFR, Mumbai (62 papers), IISc, Bangalore (49 papers), and Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai (41 papers). The decline is steep in Uttar Pradesh and to a certain extent Delhi. A welcome improvement is the considerable decrease in the number of papers published in lowimpact journals. There seems to be an attempt on the part of Indian mathematicians to publish their work in SCI/-indexed high impact journals. Even so, only a very small percent of papers has appeared in high impact factor journals. There is also a flight away from Indian journals. In ten subfields, including Statistics, Special functions, General topology, and Functions of a complex variable, India publishes more than twice the number of papers expected from the world average. Every third paper from India has resulted from inter-institutional collaboration; 212 papers (about 23%) have resulted from international collaboration. This report was prepared by the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and was submitted to NISSAT, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research Government of India, New Delhi in October 2001.

Life sciences research in India is mapped based on papers published in 1998 and indexed in Biosis Biological Abstracts. The findings are compared with those of an earlier study covering the years 1992-1994. There were 8352 papers in all, and these were published in more than 1080 journals. About 55% o'f life science papers were published in 75 Indian journals and more than 82% of papers were published in journals of impact factor less than 1.0. The two areas in which the largest numbers of papers were published are Agriculture and Biochemistry and molecular biophysics. While most agriculture papers had appeared in journals of impact factor zero or less than 1.0, many Biochemistry and molecular biophysics papers were published in journals of moderate to high impact factors. There has been a tendency over the years to publish papers in journals of higher impact factor. Close to 59% of papers were published by academic institutions, much less than the 64.5% in 1992-1994. This decline in research in academic institutions needs to be addressed. This report was prepared by the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and was submitted to NISSAT, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research Government of India, New Delhi in November 2001.

This is a submission to the 3rd Annual Social Informatics SIG Research Symposium: The Social Web, Social Computing and the Social Analysis of Computing Without the Internet there would be no Open Access (OA) movement. The movement, like social networks, was born digital. But how do you capture the history of a movement that, like a document, was born digital? How successful are traditional methodologies in capturing OAâ s past? My goal in this short paper is to identify the issues that I have encountered in my own research in order to assist others who may be considering a similar inquiry.

This investigation forms part of the author's doctoral research project and was intended as a preliminary and exploratory gauging of the area in order to establish the potential for further investigation of OA (publishing) as a peripheral practice. / The regional distribution of Open Access (OA) journals in the ISI citation databases differs significantly from the overall distribution of journals, namely in favour of peripheral areas and regions constituted predominantly of poorer countries. According to McVeigh (2004) in the ISI citation databases as a whole, North America and Western Europe account for 90% of the titles indexed, yet they account for only 40% of OA journals. Less than 2% of European and North American journals employ the OA model, yet 15% of those from the Asia-Pacific region and 40% from Central and South America are OA. This leads the author to conclude that "[for] many journals, providing free content online expands their access to an international readership" (McVeigh 2004, p.4). Departing from this assumption the study at hand addresses the following questions: Is the geographic distribution of OA journals in general more favourable towards peripheral publishing countries? How does it differ from the distribution of scholarly journals in general? Which proportions of scholarly journals and of scholarly online journals are OA in different regions and in groups of economically similar countries?* For this purpose, publishing data for active scholarly/academic journals from Ulrich's Periodicals Directory and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were gathered and analysed using descriptive statistical techniques. The data was gathered in May 2005. The results indicate interesting differences between the geographic distribution of scholarly journals in general and the subgroup of OA journals. To illustrate, among the top 25 publishing countries for all journals, 7 do not belong to the group of high income countries*, and only 6 in the case of scholarly online journals. Yet for OA journals this number increases to 11, with Brazil taking the 3rd and India the 5th spot. According to the DOAJ almost a fifth (18%) of OA journals in the Health Sciences and over a quarter (26%) of Biology and Life Science OA journals are published in the Latin American and Caribbean region. While the group of high income countries publishes 6% of its online journals as OA, 32% of those from upper middle income countries, 10% of those from lower middle income countries, and 34% of online journals emanating from low income countries are OA. Correspondingly, 5% of online journals published in Western Europe* and 6% of those from Canada and the USA are OA, yet 51% of online journals published in Latin America and the Caribbean are. (South Asia: 7%, Africa/Middle East: 8%, Eastern Europe/Central Asia: 15% East Asia/Pacific: 15%) This also has to be seen in the light of the fact that the USA, Canada, and the countries of Western Europe together account for 80% of all registered academic online journals, while their share of OA journals amounts to 59%. Due to the fast changing nature of the subject the results are meant to provide a snapshot as well as to be indicative and exploratory, and also to invite different interpretations. Yet at the same time they are also intended to instigate debate about the role OA is attributed and its significance as a peripheral practice. Notes: * see World Bank Classification of Economies. http://www.worldbank.org/data/countryclass/countryclass.html ** for the purpose of this study â Western Europeâ means pre-enlargement European Union, plus Switzerland, Iceland, and Norway.

Discusses briefly the concept and significance of resource sharing in Indian context with a view to justify on the basis of tremendous growth as well as diversity of explicit knowledge, increased users' demands, diminished budgets, galloping prices for subscribing periodicals and purchasing books, etc. Papers suggest that resource sharing is inevitable among libraries and mentions the concepts, the areas and modalities for cooperation through library consortia in the networked information environment. This paper also covers growth as well as points out merits and demerits of library consortia and the future prospect of consortia in Indian scenario.

Life sciences research carried out in India, as seen from the journal literature indexed in three years of BIOSIS Biological Abstracts (1992-1994), is quantified and mapped. The Indian institutions active in life sciences research, the journals and sub-fields in which they publish their work, and the impact factors of the journals as seen from Journal Citation Reports 1992 and 1994 are identified. In the three years studied researchers from over 1,400 institutions located in over 450 cities/ towns have authored 20,046 papers in 1,582 journals published from 52 countries. Over 54% of these papers have appeared in 18 Indian journals. While India has contributed papers to al 10 sub-fields, her contribution has exceeded 1,000 papers in three years in only four sub-fields, and 500 papers in seven other sub-fields. Only 49 institutions have published more than 100 papers each. The contribution made by different institutions to 26 sub-fields and to 36 often used journals is highlighted. More than 64% of Indian papers indexed in BIOSIS come from academic institutions. Among scientific agencies, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research have published more than 1,500 papers each. In all Indian researchers have published 188 papers (less than 1.0%) in journals with a 1994 impact factor greater than 4.0. More than 46.3% of Indian papers have appeared in non-5CY journals, and a further 37.5% of papers have been published in journals with impact factors less than 1.0. The analysis reveals the existence of two clusters: a large number of institutions devoted to agriculture and classical biology, publishing mostly in low-impact journals, often in Indian journals, and a smaller group of institutions publishing some papers in new biology and some areas of medicine in quality international journals of medium impact. The larger cluster includes the agricultural universities and many general universities, while the smaller cluster includes the Indian Institute of Science, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, National Institute of Immunology, and Indian Institute of Chemical Biology. While it would be desirable for Indian researchers to publish bulk of the agricultural research and a substantial part of medical research in Indian journals, they have no such constraint in new biology and can publish their work in high-impact international journals. Yet only a small proportion of Indian papers in biochemistry and molecular biology, general and internal medicine, microbiology, biophysics, immunology, and gastroenterology have appeared in such journals.

Fish and aquaculture research in India has been mapped using data from six databases. About 460 papers, roughly 5.5% of the world output, come from India every year, of which 82% are journal articles. Close to 70% of journal articles have appeared in 113 Indian journals. Less than a third of the journal articles are published in journals indexed in SCI. About 61% of publications are contributed by government laboratories and over 25% by academic institutions. Government laboratories publish most of their work in low impact and low visibility journals and academic institutions in journals of medium impact. However, even those papers appearing in better-rated journals are not cited well. Kochi, Chennai, Mumbai and Mangalore are the cities and Tamil Nadu and Kerala are the states contributing large number of papers.

Mathematics research in India, as reflected by papers indexed in Mathsci 1990 and 1994, is quantified and mapped. There were 1319 papers originating in India and indexed in the 1990 disc of Mathsci CD-ROM version, and 1391 papers indexed in 1994. Of these 2710 papers, 2549 had appeared in 467 journals, 221 of which were indexed in Journal Citation Reports 1994. Indian researchers had published 9 papers in these two years in 62 Indian journals, 503 papers in 108 US journals, 254 papers in 40 journals from the Netherlands, and 15 papers in 42 British journals. 18 institutions located in 10 cities/towns and 23 states/union territories had contributed to India's research output indexed in Mathsci, although only three have contributed more than a hundred papers in the two years, and another nine had contributed 50 or more papers. Academic institutions had published 87% of al papers and central government funded research councils and departments accounted for 12.6%. Four cities, viz. Calcutta, New Delhi, Bombay, and Madras had published more than 20 papers each in the two years. Five states, viz. West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Delhi had published more than 250 papers each. More than 53% of journal papers were published in journals not indexed in Journal Citation Reports. Only 81 papers had appeared in journals of impact factor greater than 2.000, and these are mostly physics journals. Of the 61 subfields in Mathsci, Indian researchers had been most active in Statistics, General topolgy, Quantum theory, and Special functions. India has a high activity index for Special functions and General topology and a moderately high activity index for Statistics, Integral transforms and Operational calculus, and Sequences, series and summability. The activity is low in Prtial differential equations, Ordinary differential equations, Numerical analysis, K-theory, and Computer science. The future of mathematics in India seems to rest with DAE, TIFR and ISI. Universities seem to be losing momentum.