4.6 Article

The Structure and Dynamic of Scientific Collaboration Network among Countries along the Belt and Road

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 11, Issue 19, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11195187

Keywords

international scientific collaboration; belt and road initiative; social network analysis; hierarchy; globalization of science

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41571123, 41901152, 41901139]
  2. ECNU (East China Normal University) [WLKXJ2019-002]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA20100311]
  4. Philosophical and Social Science Foundation of Shanghai [2018EJL003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although a number of studies have discussed the economic, geopolitical and environmental impacts of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), there is a scarcity of analysis on the importance of science in the Belt and Road (B&R). Adopting bibliographical data from Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science database for the period 2000-2018, this study investigates the network properties, topological structure, spatial pattern, position of countries, core-periphery sets, and the hierarchy of the network from a dynamic perspective. The results show that scientific collaboration is increasingly frequent. The hub-and-spoke and triangulated structures coexist, shaping the landscape of the network. With the decline of Central and Eastern Europe, and the rise of the Asia-Pacific region, the spatial pattern evolves from ''strong Western and weak Eastern to ''weak Western and strong Eastern''. The central position has been occupied by India, China, and Turkey, while Russia's influence has lessened over time. Moreover, the collaboration network is a typical core-periphery structure with prominent hierarchical features. China, Poland, and Saudi Arabia are the top-tier coordination centers within sub-networks. Finally, this study provides policy recommendations and prospective research directions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available