China Now the Most Prolific Contributor To Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Math (bloomberg.com) 201
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Thirty years ago in December, the modern exchange of scholars between the U.S. and China began. Since then, Chinese academics have become the most prolific global contributors to publications in physical sciences, engineering and math. Recent attempts by the U.S. to curtail academic collaboration are unlikely to change this trend. Qingnan Xie of Nanjing University of Science & Technology and Richard Freeman of Harvard University have studied China's contribution to global scientific output. They document a rapid expansion between 2000 and 2016, as the Chinese share of global publications in physical sciences, engineering and math quadrupled. By 2016, the Chinese share exceeded that of the U.S. Furthermore, the authors argue that these metrics -- which are based on the addresses of the authors -- understate China's impact. The data don't count papers written by Chinese researchers located in other countries with addresses outside China and exclude most papers written in Chinese publications. The researchers adjusted for both factors and conclude that Chinese academics now account for more than one-third of global publications in these scientific fields.
But is it useful? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, exclude all papers found to be misleading, wrong or outright fake. How big is China's impact on contributing to the sciences now?
Re:But is it useful? (Score:5, Insightful)
China has been investing massively in science. China has a few really good universities itself, as well as many Chinese people studying in prestigious places abroad who come back to contribute to science in those universities (just as people from every other country in the world do). Science is a global pursuit, and the fact that China puts a large amount of money and manpower towards it means it can contribute significantly. While it was the case (and in some cases still is the case) that China had to catch up to meet the standards of the USA and western countries, they have been catching up quickly and an increasing amount of the work done in China is now groundbreaking. This is not surprising. The only thing you need is smart people, knowledge, and massive funding. And the knowledge-part of that can be learned from scientific publications or the international exchange of scientists.
If the USA wants to make sure they stay somewhere near the top, they should not attempt to 'curtail academic collaboration'. That doesn't help anyone, and only slows down global science. It also might have the effect that the collaborations will simply move to China-Europe instead of China-USA, which would speed up progress in China and Europe, but not the USA. The only thing that can help the USA stay on top (if they are on top) is to do more and better science than anyone else, not to somehow try to make other people do less or less good science.
Re: (Score:3)
"China has been investing massively in spying...."
Fixed.
Re: (Score:3)
I am a researcher. In my field (educational technology), China is spending *massively*. PhD tenured-professor-level positions, nationwide, number in the tens. Maybe 30 each year. The leading university in China has the following:
- 120 *new* paid tenured position. They are adding to their *existing* 50, as they've seen significant return (my alma matter has ~13, and is top-ranked).
- 250 *new* professor assistant positions. Notably, this is more than my alma matters' entire department...
Re:But is it useful? (Score:4, Insightful)
Note to self: No fake/misleading papers are ever published in the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
The question is the rate at which such studies were published. Which would itself make for an interesting study.
Re: (Score:1)
Note to self: No fake/misleading papers are ever published in the USA.
In what peer-reviewed study did you read this? Has this study been reliably replicated [slashdot.org]?
[sarcasm, if any, is inherited from parent post]
Re: But is it useful? (Score:1)
Approaching zero impact.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:But is it useful? (Score:5, Interesting)
We won't know and we can't know... yet. What really measure the impact of a paper's contribution is its citations. Check back in 5 years and rank countries by citations and you'll have a better idea.
Going by raw output volume, it shouldn't be surprising if China surpasses the US. Nearly one person in five alive lives in China. If you rank the top ten countries by science and tech research papers, it goes (or rather, went) US, China, Japan, Germany, UK, India, France, Italy, Korea, Canada. But if you rank those countries by per capita output, you get Canada, UK, US, Germany, France, Korea, Italy, China, India.
On a per capita basis, UK and Canada are very similar, as are the US, Germany, France, Korea, and Italy. China follows far behind that group, and India trails far behind China. That may be because many Indian scholars emigrate overseas, especially to the US. Similarly the US ranking is probably inflated by the large number of immigrant researchers here. As the US becomes less friendly to foreign students and researchers, we can expect our research output to fall both in quality and quantity.
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly one person in five alive lives in China.
I have a better metric for success. The Chinese promote their top students setting them aside where they can be trained well. They then proceed to send them to world class international universities. In the meantime many countries in the west target mediocrity ignoring the talent and focusing all the effort on ensuring the voluntarily dumb kids don't fall behind.
Some countries even rig the system so only the rich can get a decent education, and those who aren't rich get lumped with loans that they would be
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it fall in quality? That seems like pure BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, exclude all papers found to be misleading, wrong or outright fake. How big is China's impact on contributing to the sciences now?
China has free university.Therefore, from rich or poor, the smarted of the lot are doing the advanced studies and research.
Want the USA to lead, make universities affordable, don't cut off 70% of the student population
Re: (Score:3)
Yep.
George Carlin did all those shows for nothing, his words went right over the heads of most people.
Re: (Score:2)
Religious belief in the USA is in a fairly steady very long term decline. Inevitably (perhaps 500 years) it's going to die out, because it's demonstrably wrong and clearly self-destructive.
In the absence of political interference, China will become the great force of scientific advancement for 2 simple reasons: they have 3 time the population of the US and an average IQ advantage of about 7 points.
Re: (Score:2)
Still bigger than the US, which is fast becoming a nation of bible banging idiots. The primacy of the US is over and Trump and DeVos are making sure the only future the working class have is debt slavery and prison
The US is like Europe in that it is becoming less religious, not more. The only reason the "SJWs" can "get away with it" is because of this exact shift the past 50 years.
Prior to that, support for gays, and earlier, womens' rights, could get you fired, and certainly your company boycotted.
Should anyone be surprised that same wrong power is being wielded with vengeance now? It held sway for the other side for thousands of years.
Fortnite... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but the US has the best Fortnite players. Who's laughing now?
Cue Alice Cooper's "School's Out"...
Re: (Score:3)
China number 1. Wait, that was 2 games ago. Never mind.
The inevitable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just that, this also depends on an efficient educational feeder system, starting in elementary school or even before.
However (Score:1)
China is still the least prolific contributor to human rights and decency.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you ignorant or malicious?
There were a wide variety of native American cultures. Some quickly integrated into Western culture. Of the others, some were nasty and some were fairly decent.
So ... ? (Score:2)
Furthermore, the authors argue that these metrics -- which are based on the addresses of the authors -- understate China's impact. The data don't count papers written by Chinese researchers located in other countries with addresses outside China and exclude most papers written in Chinese publications. The researchers adjusted for both factors and conclude that Chinese academics now account for more than one-third of global publications in these scientific fields.
So the study does somehow take into account all papers written by US researchers outside the US? If not, why wasn't that mentioned and if it was, why wasn't the same methodology used for Chinese authors?
Quality of output? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Quality of output? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think this factors in what I believe is a higher likelihood for scientific papers originating in China to involve plagiarism and/or fraud.
Yeah, this is what I came in here to say. It seems like all the obviously fake science that's not printed in an Elsevier journal [the-scientist.com] is coming out of China [nytimes.com]. Is China actually producing more quality research, or just more paper output?
Re: Quality of output? (Score:1)
Just an anctedote, but in my field publications with a majority of Chinese authors are generally significantly lower in quality. They often miss critical parts, or reinvent the wheel. From conversations with Chinese colleagues, there is a push on quantity over quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprised. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This exactly. Just factoring out the number of papers that Chinese researchers have to retract due to peer review issues (see here https://qz.com/978037/china-pu... [qz.com]), their actual output does not exceed ours.
counting is wrong (Score:1)
The problem here is counting papers.
It leads to endless improper
conclusions and comparisons, and this is just the latest such nonsense.
In my specialty field (tactfully not mentioned) China has zero representation.
The word on the street is that in many fields they produce cutting edge research, while in
others fields they lead the world in fake research.
What are these raw numbers meant to tell us?
So far CN scientific papers are mosrtly fraud (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So far CN scientific papers are mosrtly fraud (Score:4, Insightful)
That would certainly help to explain why China remains completely unable to build enormous modern cities, high-speed trains, hypersonic missiles, supercomputers, satellites, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
That would certainly help to explain why China remains completely unable to build enormous modern cities, high-speed trains, hypersonic missiles, supercomputers, satellites, etc.
Well it's easy to build something when you require companies to share their technology for access to their markets, and manufacturing isn't it. So really, they are unable to build those. They're able to make knockoffs that are "good enough."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I have seen so far Chinese papers are universally fraud. I am on peer review lists for a number of papers, and from what I have seen it is mostly junk papers that are coming out of China. Not just language, that can be forgiven/edited, but bad methods, obviously cooked data, blatant plagiarism.
They don't have publish or perish. Why's the incentive?
Re: (Score:2)
From what I have seen so far Chinese papers are universally fraud.
Congratulations. You have not looked very hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Inevitable, really (Score:5, Interesting)
There are four Chinese for every American, five for every two Europeans. All other things being equal, they're going to become the dominant country in everything.
The only country that's going to be close is India (again, all other things being equal).
Lacking a major war, or internal political factors, the Chinese and Indians are going to dominate the world over the next couple centuries, and the USA is going to go the way of the UK - a nation that dominated "back then"....
Note, for the record, that I don't think "all other things being equal" actually applies. I don't think either China or India can liberalize enough to allow their inherent advantages to really take hold. But you never can tell....
Re: (Score:1)
Lacking a major war, or internal political factors, the Chinese and Indians are going to dominate the world over the next couple centuries
Your forgetting a few things:
Global Pandemic
Climate Change
AI/Robotics
etc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how many contributors to this thread are aware that, until the 19th century, China and India were far and away the world's dominant economic powers?
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is...two.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My guess is all of them except the ones familiar with history. Prior to the 1800s you're going to claim China and India as the major economic powers? India didn't exist in the 1700s for effs sake. It was a hodge podge of countries and weren't under singular rule until the UK and the East India Company invaded and colonized the area. China was crippled by opium dens. Again, mostly because of the East India Company.
Re: (Score:3)
And 3000 years ago it was Europe, repeatedly. Then more recently, the dark ages, 1:2 dead from plagues, collapse of societies, organized states, and so on really did a banger on Europe. What should surprise you is after the total collapse of society to the point where the graveyards were overflowing with the dead, European society didn't regress backwards at a screaming rate like say middle eastern countries, northern africa, and so on did.
Re: (Score:2)
There are four Chinese for every American, five for every two Europeans. All other things being equal, they're going to become the dominant country in everything.
The only country that's going to be close is India (again, all other things being equal).
Lacking a major war, or internal political factors, the Chinese and Indians are going to dominate the world over the next couple centuries, and the USA is going to go the way of the UK - a nation that dominated "back then"....
The USA and UK never used sheer population to dominate world affairs, for the simple reason that this would have been numerically impossible. So I find this an odd argument.
Note, for the record, that I don't think "all other things being equal" actually applies. I don't think either China or India can liberalize enough to allow their inherent advantages to really take hold. But you never can tell....
Indeed, all other things are not equal. Mandarin Chinese have significantly higher average IQ than most other people groups, for one thing. Then again, they seem to be more content with totalitarianism, which Americans/UK wouldn't tolerate. So many factors are not equal. Hard to predict what will happen ...
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't totalitarianism anymore. While political challenges are largely restricted, economically they are much more open. As a result, they are becoming much more productive.
Right on schedule. [juliansimon.com]
Insofar as they are open, it doesn't matter. Insofar as if they ever shut back down, they will go back to being irrelevant.
But Americans have the best lawyers (Score:2)
I'm sure the US out lawyers China 10 to 1.
So, what did the US do right to dominate in that field?
(I like your test thesis.)
Re: (Score:2)
Unbuild the wall and make ourselves pay for it! We'll need population to avoid being stomped on.
I don't know if China is actually that sinister, but why take a chance? Look how anal they are about Taiwan?
If only... (Score:4, Interesting)
If only their quality was as high as their quantity.
One common complaint within scholarly circles in recent times is the unusually low quality of published works coming out of China.
China is to academic publishing as India is to computer software development. It seems like every other person there is producing this stuff, but only a very small subset produce something worth paying attention to.
Re: (Score:2)
Good! (Score:3)
I know some people recoil at the idea of the advancement of China (for obvious sociopolitical reasons) but the advancement of science is good no matter where it happens. I'm disappointed by the lack of investment in science by my own nation but the advancement of humanity via science is global.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed! They seemed the only nation willing and ready to test the em-drive in space, and I was eagerly awaiting the results.
It's already been determined how it works: it's pushing against the electromagnetic field of the Earth. We didn't disregard it as you seem to imply, we just wanted to be certain that it actually does something by testing it in a controlled laboratory setting before deciding to put it up in space. Once we got the correct measurements, scientists were able to identify it's cause. Not jumping the gun on the EM drive saved millions of dollars, so I wouldn't cite that as a good example.
They steal ! (Score:1)
LPA - Least publishable/patentable unit (Score:1)
Decades ago, the terms "least publishable unit" and "least patent-able unit" were being thrown around.
Bear in mind that patent laws and publishing practices have undergone some changes in the years since.
Under an "LPA" philosophy of the time, you did what you could to maximize the number of publications and patents you could get out of any invention or research, because when it came to getting money from entities that don't look too closely, "weight-ness makes great-ness" and both will be good for your empl
Yes but... (Score:1)
The US now leads the world in "what the fuck?"
Gauntlet thrown Australia
Re: (Score:2)
China is a slave state (Score:2)
As are all communist regimes. State slavery. There is nothing to admire about them.
US team wins First Place in Math Olympics (Score:3)
America's top "mathletes" have won the first place [ams.org] once again this year in the international Math Olympiad.
The team's group picture [maa.org], however, is as racist as it gets...
Mathematics (Score:2)
Mathematics is plural.
We call it Maths where I come from.
Re: (Score:2)
Mathematics is plural.
Sort of, not really, it's complicated.
Nouns ending in -ics like mathematics, physics, politics, or ethics, mean "a body of facts/information relating to X". The Latin suffix -ica, and it's Greek equivalent, denote a plural, but the Greek suffix -ikos is singular.
For most such words, there is no singular form that lacks the ending -s. There is no singular noun "mathematic" or "politic", and the singular noun "physic" is related to medicine (as in "physician"), not physics. There is, however, the singul
Re: (Score:2)
Do you use maths to catch fishes?
Re: (Score:2)
Or more accurately, do you use maths to count how many waters you drink?
Not racist (Score:2)
3 asians and 2 brown people is not racist. Not all asians and not all brown people are the same race. There may be more than 5 races represented there as 'muricans love to intermix.
I doubt any other country is more diverse.
Re: (Score:2)
Asians are Schrodinger's minority. They're considered "white" by progressive leaning outlets usually in days ending in y.
Exposing Racism (Score:2)
Any group with disproportional representation of any race is — by the progressive definition racist. Blacks in the US comprise about 12% of the population, so it may be excusable for a group of fewer than 10 to not have any. But Whites are a majority, so any group of two or more without a single White person is racist. Case closed.
Now, as we also know from the same progressive teachers of the people [wikipedia.org], denial of racism is in itself racist [tandfonline.com]. Yes, I'm looking sternly at you, racist, you have been exposed [medium.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone ever?
Probably true - but people turn a blind eye (Score:2)
Sustained effort pays off (Score:1)
China has been working on this for decades, and there have been some notable academic fraud gaffes, but they've been putting in serious effort, and it adds up over time.
There are a lot of network effects in scientific research, and historically there's been a huge brain drain as Chinese have looked abroad for opportunities. But China has worked hard to create those opportunities domestically and it's no longer necessary to leave to do world-class science.
Some projects have been white elephants (the LAMOST
Can someone explain the academic ecosystem? (Score:2)
Perhaps (Score:2)
It is because China, unlike the US, takes education a bit more seriously ?
The US hasn't yet figured out that you can't rely on outsourcing to solve all of your problems. ( A good example is relying on Russia to act as Space-Uber to get your astronauts up to the ISS )
When you piss off the country you rely on to make the magic happen, well. . . . you better have a local solution to fall back upon.
Which is why the public education system needs to be overhauled.
You don't get to stay a superpower for very long
Re: (Score:2)
Those Muslim concentration / re-education camps are well run enough to make Hitler blush in hell.
Have you even one credible source for that smear?
Re:Politics (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/asia/china-uighur-muslim-detention-camp.html
Re: (Score:3)
OK, I read TFA. The camps are bad, but they're nowhere near as bad as Hitler's concentration camps. They are not death camps, they're not lifetime imprisonment. They're anti-Muslim "re-education" camps, particularly anti-extreme-Muslim, and apparently there's also some job training going on.
To summarize: it's not Hitler level evil, it's modern communist level evil.
Re: (Score:2)
To summarize: it's not Hitler level evil, it's modern communist level evil.
Well Stalin's Gulag's were modern communist levels of evil too. If you don't think people aren't "getting the bullet" in those places today, you're just being naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Inside, hundreds of ethnic Uighur Muslims spend their days in a high-pressure indoctrination program, where they are forced to listen to lectures, sing hymns praising the Chinese Communist Party and write “self-criticism” essays, according to detainees who have been released.
Inside the American university, hundreds of thousands of students spend their days in a high-pressure indoctrination program, where they are forced to listen to lectures, sing hymns praising the Joys of Diversity and write “self-criticism” essays, according to detainees who have been released.
Re:Politics (Score:4, Interesting)
If the USA made them mandatory, then yes.
Re: (Score:1)
"In God we trust".
Praise Jesus.
Re:Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
So where's it say that some form of religion is mandated by the state in the US? Right. Canada has a heavier influence of religion on it's state then the US, to the point that Catholics were guaranteed protected rights, including a fully functional and separate education system funded by general revenue taxes. And *is* mandated by the state and constitutional law that it must exist.
Re: (Score:2)
So where's it say that some form of religion is mandated by the state in the US? Right. Canada has a heavier influence of religion on it's state then the US, to the point that Catholics were guaranteed protected rights, including a fully functional and separate education system funded by general revenue taxes. And *is* mandated by the state and constitutional law that it must exist.
It's kind of butt-ironic that many US states have a constitutional amendment forbidding tax dollars from going to religious schools because their Protestant majorities were scared Catholic schools might get a piece of the Protestant school tax action.
Again, it is the power in the hands of government that is wrong, not who wields it or why. Neither side learns this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of butt-ironic that many US states have a constitutional amendment forbidding tax dollars from going to religious schools because their Protestant majorities were scared Catholic schools might get a piece of the Protestant school tax action.
Considering the shitshows between Catholics and Protestants, right or wrong reasons that people chose against it. It was still the better option in the long run.
Again, it is the power in the hands of government that is wrong, not who wields it or why. Neither side learns this.
Well, here's the interesting thing. The Catholics up here in Canada were basically the "government of the day" when they got this little perk, there's lots of history on it but to say it's been a gigantic clusterfuck the size of a black hole would be an understatement.
Re: (Score:2)
So where's it say that some form of religion is mandated by the state in the US? Right.
I expect to see an openly gay president in the USA before I see an openly atheist one.
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
That explains a lot when you think about it.
Jesus was all about sacrifice for the greater good. Something today's Americans just don't understand or accept while Canadians can't accept anything but. It's why Canadians have a real healthcare system and Americans have to decide between life and debt. Because Canada is a Christian country and Americans are just filthy atheists.
lol
Really? So why don't you explain why the average family here in Canada drops upwards of $200/mo per-person for private healthcare insurance. On top of that, going broke from paying for medications happens a lot up here. Dropping dead from not being able to get any care at all, hell the US has Canada beat on that one. If you're dirt poor at least in the US you can still get treatment, in Canada you're on the waiting list with everyone else. But hey, if you think waiting 17 months to hit a pain clinic, 1
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the difference, in Canada all the provinces and territories "buy as a block" on medications. US states could do the same, but they don't. Individual insurance companies do though, look at what Trump's admin did though and how much of a shockwave went through the industry when they forced through generics on several drugs. The name brand prices dropped through the floor, even in some cases undercutting generic drugs that were being newly manufactured.
You can be denied supplemental insurance in Cana
Re: (Score:2)
It is official doctrine of Roman Catholicism and many Protestant sects that it is belief in God and the divinity of Jesus that makes someone a Christian, not good works.
On a related note, sacrifice is self-destruction, inherently a part of most evil.
Re: (Score:2)
On a related note, sacrifice is self-destruction
I think you need to find a better dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a Christian*, but not a good one, unless you're a Calvinist or a related dogma which believes that you go to heaven no matter what you do just by believing in Jesus, and "accepting him into your heart" whatever that means.
Salvation in the next life in Roman and Eastern Catholic traditions and most Protestant ones is obtained by being a good Christian and that typically would be defined as someone who tries to be like Jesus, you know, help the poor, don't be a dick, etc -- though being divine is rare
copycat research (Score:3)
I surmise that China genuinely wants to know more about old answers, from the nuts and bolts to basic veracity, find opportunities (lots of them) and to train a generation of its scientists with an answer guide.
Re: (Score:2)
They also have more english speakers.
Is that taking into account Chinese speakers' superior grammar, spelling, punctuation, accent and familiarity with English literature?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that taking into account Chinese speakers' superior grammar, spelling, punctuation, accent and familiarity with English literature?
Let me put it this way. When the company I work for sends something off for fabbing in Japan, S.Korea, or doing work in Singapore, we don't need translators. When we do it in China, we require at least four different levels. If you're part of the "highly educated" segment of Chinese society you have a pretty good chance of getting english. But if you're some poor-boy/girl that's looking to make their money after leaving the dirt farm, you're outta luck. On the other hand, a 10 year old has a better gra
Re: (Score:1)
I guess that's true.. Unless you count things like paper, gun powder, the compass, silk, alcohol, type printing, the clock, iron smelting, farming, money and stuff like that.
Sorry, while China (or predecessor cultures in areas now encompassed by China) did invent (or discover) some of these things, several items on these lists originated in other areas, often millennia earlier. I've bolded the earliest known uses below:
Actual earliest evidence of these inventions,
Paper - Egypt, 2600 BCE , China 100BCE
Gunpowder - China 1044 CE
Compass, divination - Olmec, 1400 BCE, Navigation, China - 11tch C CE
Silk - China - Ca. 4000 BCE
Alcohol, purposely fermented - earliest Chinese archaeolo
Re: (Score:2)
The Egyptians also manufactured beer.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese may be on a trajectory to mimic the historical Japanese leap from cheap copycats to innovators and technology leaders. However, that hasn't happened yet and is not guaranteed to happen. The absolute number of academic papers isn't very interesting as the number publication venues have exploded much faster than the number of top conferences. The modest increase in the number of Chinese-authored papers in top conferences is much more impressive than the increase in the total number of papers in
Re: (Score:1)
Not Chinese but post-Deng Chinese Communists (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not "always". In the time of the Roman Empire a large chunk of economy was powered by slave labor. That changed with the fall of the Roman Empire though.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. It was just for profits sake. Soldier farmers lost their lands on prolonged campaigns and the wealthy purchased them at bargain prices from the destitute families. The soldiers brought slaves from their campaigns which were bought by the wealthy as cheap labor to till the fields. It was win-win for them.
You should read about water mills in the Roman Empire. It's a load of fun. Some wealthy farmers with large plantations ordered water mills from craftsmen to grind wheat (which used to be done with manua
Re: (Score:2)
Huawei, Xiaomi, ZTE, Oppo, DJI.
Due to sanctions Chinese can't purchase semiconductor manufacturing tools unless they are two process nodes behind the leading edge technology.
As for their aeronautical sector, they working on it, with projects like the Comac 919. They are still behind countries like Russia, Brazil, Canada though.