Edge Factors: Scientific Frontier Positions of Nations

Exploring the Role of International Research Collaboration in Building China’s World-Class Universities

This study explored the international research collaboration led by China’s world-class universities and its impact during the first construction cycle of the “Double First-Class” initiative (2016–2020). We collected international collaborative publications based on the Scopus database and examined the performance of international research collaboration in terms of quantity, impact, collaborative networks, and subject areas using scientometric indicators and social network analysis. We found that international collaboration accounts for only a quarter of the total output but is far above the overall level of scientific papers in terms of quality and impact. The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Hong Kong remain China’s closest partners. Meanwhile, ties with Belt and Road partner countries have become stronger with the introduction of foreign policy. China’s medicine and multidisciplinary research have gained prominence in the context of the global health crisis. Thus, international research collaboration effectively improves research performance, deepens academic networks, and disseminates local issues and solutions to the world, thereby enabling China’s world-class universities to reconcile global engagement with Chinese characteristics.

'All things are in flux': China in global science

Since 1990, a large and dynamic global science system has evolved, based on grass roots collaboration, and resting on the resources, infrastructure and personnel housed by national science systems. Euro-American science systems have become intensively networked in a global duopoly; and many other countries have built national science systems, including a group of large- and middle-sized countries that follow semi-autonomous trajectories based on state investment, intensive national network building, and international engagement, without integrating tightly into the global duopoly. The dual global/national approach pursued by these systems, including China, South Korea, Iran and India, is not always fully understood in papers on science. Nevertheless, China is now the number two science country in the world, the largest producer of papers and number one in parts of STEM physical sciences. The paper investigates the remarkable evolution of China's science funding, output, discipline balance, internationalisation strategy and national and global networking. China has combined global activity and the local/national building of science in positive sum manner, on the ground of the nationally nested science system. The paper also discusses limits of the achievement, noting that while China-US relations have been instrumental in building science, a partial decoupling is occurring and the future is unclear.

NIH funding and the pursuit of edge science

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) plays a critical role in funding scientific endeavors in biomedicine. Funding innovative science is an essential element of the NIH's mission, but many have questioned the NIH's ability to fulfill this aim. Based on an analysis of a comprehensive corpus of published biomedical research articles, we measure whether the NIH succeeds in funding work with novel ideas, which we term edge science. We find that edge science is more often NIH funded than less novel science, but with a delay. Papers that build on very recent ideas are NIH funded less often than are papers that build on ideas that have had a chance to mature for at least 7 y. We have three further findings. First, the tendency to fund edge science is mostly limited to basic science. Papers that build on novel clinical ideas are not more often NIH funded than are papers that build on well-established clinical knowledge. Second, novel papers tend to be NIH funded more often because there are more NIH-funded papers in innovative areas of investigation, rather than because the NIH funds innovative papers within research areas. Third, the NIH's tendency to have funded papers that build on the most recent advances has declined over time. In this regard, NIH funding has become more conservative despite initiatives to increase funding for innovative projects. Given our focus on published papers, the results reflect both the funding preferences of the NIH and the composition of the applications it receives.