Adv Search

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions

GU Weinan,  LIU Hui

downloadPDF
文章导航 > Chinese Geographical Science  > 2020 >  30(6): 959-975
GU Weinan, LIU Hui. Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions[J]. 中国地理科学, 2020, 30(6): 959-975. doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1161-9
引用本文: GU Weinan, LIU Hui. Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions[J]. 中国地理科学, 2020, 30(6): 959-975. doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1161-9
shu
GU Weinan, LIU Hui. Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions[J]. Chinese Geographical Science, 2020, 30(6): 959-975. doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1161-9
Citation: GU Weinan, LIU Hui. Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions[J]. Chinese Geographical Science, 2020, 30(6): 959-975. doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1161-9
shu

Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions

doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1161-9

  • 1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;

  • 2. Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;

  • 3. College of Resource and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

基金项目: 

Under the auspices of Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XDA20010103)

详细信息
    通讯作者:

    LIU Hui.E-mail:liuh@igsnrr.ac.cn

Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions

  • 1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;

  • 2. Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;

  • 3. College of Resource and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Funds: 

Under the auspices of Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XDA20010103)

  • 摘要: Scientific collaboration has become an important part of the people-to-people exchanges in the Belt and Road initiative, and remarkable progress has been made since 2013. Taking the 65 countries along the Belt and Road (BRI countries) as the research areas and using collaborated Web of Science (WOS) core collection papers to construct an international scientific collaboration matrix, the paper explores the spatial structure, hierarchy and formation mechanisms of scientific collaboration networks of 65 countries along the Belt and Road. The results show that: 1) Beyond the Belt and Road regions (BRI regions), Central & Eastern Europe, China and West Asia & North Africa have formed a situation in which they all have the most external links with other countries beyond BRI regions. China has the dominant role over other BRI countries in generating scientific links. The overall spatial structure has changed to a skeleton structure consisting of many dense regions, such as Europe, North America, East Asia and Oceania. 2) Within the Belt and Road regions, Central & Eastern Europe has become the largest collaboration partner with other sub-regions in BRI countries. The spatial structure of scientific collaboration networks has transformed from the ‘dual core’ composed of China and the Central & Eastern Europe region, to the ‘multi-polarization’ composed of ‘one zone and multi-points’. 3) The hierarchical structure of scientific collaboration networks presents a typical ‘core-periphery’ structure, and changes from ‘single core’ to ‘double cores’. 4) Among the formation mechanisms of scientific collaboration networks, scientific research strength and social proximity play the most important roles, while geographical distance gradually weakens the hindrance to scientific collaboration.
    Abstract: Scientific collaboration has become an important part of the people-to-people exchanges in the Belt and Road initiative, and remarkable progress has been made since 2013. Taking the 65 countries along the Belt and Road (BRI countries) as the research areas and using collaborated Web of Science (WOS) core collection papers to construct an international scientific collaboration matrix, the paper explores the spatial structure, hierarchy and formation mechanisms of scientific collaboration networks of 65 countries along the Belt and Road. The results show that: 1) Beyond the Belt and Road regions (BRI regions), Central & Eastern Europe, China and West Asia & North Africa have formed a situation in which they all have the most external links with other countries beyond BRI regions. China has the dominant role over other BRI countries in generating scientific links. The overall spatial structure has changed to a skeleton structure consisting of many dense regions, such as Europe, North America, East Asia and Oceania. 2) Within the Belt and Road regions, Central & Eastern Europe has become the largest collaboration partner with other sub-regions in BRI countries. The spatial structure of scientific collaboration networks has transformed from the ‘dual core’ composed of China and the Central & Eastern Europe region, to the ‘multi-polarization’ composed of ‘one zone and multi-points’. 3) The hierarchical structure of scientific collaboration networks presents a typical ‘core-periphery’ structure, and changes from ‘single core’ to ‘double cores’. 4) Among the formation mechanisms of scientific collaboration networks, scientific research strength and social proximity play the most important roles, while geographical distance gradually weakens the hindrance to scientific collaboration.
  • [1] Agrawal A, Kapur D, McHale J, 2008. How do spatial and social proximity influence knowledge flows? Evidence from patent data. Journal of Urban Economics, 64(2):258-269. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2008.01.003
    [2] Andersson D E, Gunessee S, Matthiessen C W et al., 2014. The geography of Chinese science. Environment and Planning A:Economy and Space, 46(12):2950-2971. doi: 10.1068/a130283p
    [3] Araujo I F D, Goncalves E, Taveira J G, 2018. The role of patent co-inventorship networks in regional inventive performance. International Regional Science Review, 42(3-4):235-280. doi: 10.1177/0160017618770717
    [4] Autant-Bernard C, Billand P, Frachisse D et al., 2007. Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation:empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3):495-519. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00132.x
    [5] Balland P A, 2012. Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks:evidence from research and development projects within the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) industry. Regional Studies, 46(6):741-756. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2010.529121
    [6] Balland P A, Boschma R, Frenken K, 2015. Proximity and innovation:from statics to dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6):907-920. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2014.883598
    [7] Balland P A, Belso-Martínez J A, Morrison A, 2016. The dynamics of technical and business knowledge networks in industrial clusters:embeddedness, status, or proximity? Economic Geography, 92(1):35-60. doi: 10.1080/00130095.2015.1094370
    [8] Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P, 2004. Clusters and knowledge:local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1):31-56. doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph469oa
    [9] Bergé L R, Wanzenböck I, Scherngell T, 2017. Centrality of regions in R&D networks:a new measurement approach using the concept of bridging paths. Regional Studies, 51(8):1165-1178. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1269885
    [10] Boschma R, 2005. Proximity and innovation:a critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1):61-74. doi:10.1080/00343400 52000320887
    [11] Boschma R, Martin R, 2010. The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar Publishing, 120-135.
    [12] Breschi S, Lissoni F, 2009. Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks:an anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(4):439-468. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbp008
    [13] Breschi S, Lenzi C, 2015. The role of external linkages and gatekeepers for the renewal and expansion of US cities' knowledge base, 1990-2004. Regional Studies, 49(5):782-797. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2014.954534
    [14] Breschi S, Lenzi C, 2016. Co-invention networks and inventive productivity in US cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 92:66-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2015.12.003
    [15] Broekel T, 2015. The co-evolution of proximities:a network level study. Regional Studies, 49(6):921-935. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2014.1001732
    [16] Broekel T, Mueller W, 2018. Critical links in knowledge networks:what about proximities and gatekeeper organisations? Industry and Innovation, 25(10):919-939. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2017.1343130
    [17] Cantner U, Rake B, 2014. International research networks in pharmaceuticals:Structure and dynamics. Research Policy, 43(2):333-348. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.016
    [18] Cao Z, Derudder B, Peng Z W, 2019. Interaction between different forms of proximity in inter-organizational scientific collaboration:the case of medical sciences research network in the Yangtze River Delta region. Papers in Regional Science, 98(5):1903-1924. doi: 10.1111/pirs.12438
    [19] Caragliu A, Nijkamp P, 2016. Space and knowledge spillovers in European regions:the impact of different forms of proximity on spatial knowledge diffusion. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(3):749-774. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbv042
    [20] Cassi L, Morrison A, Rabellotti R, 2015. Proximity and scientific collaboration:evidence from the global wine industry. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 106(2):205-219. doi: 10.1111/tesg.12137
    [21] Cassi L, Plunket A, 2015. Research collaboration in co-inventor networks:combining closure, bridging and proximities. Regional Studies, 49(6):936-954. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2013.816412
    [22] Crescenzi R, Nathan M, Rodríguez-Pose A, 2016. Do inventors talk to strangers? On proximity and collaborative knowledge creation. Research Policy, 45(1):177-194. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.003
    [23] de Araújo I F, Gonçalves E, Taveira J G, 2019. The role of patent co-inventorship networks in regional inventive performance. International Regional Science Review, 42(3-4):235-280. doi: 10.1177/0160017618770717
    [24] De Noni I, Orsi L, Belussi F, 2018. The role of collaborative networks in supporting the innovation performances of lagging-behind European regions. Research Policy, 47(1):1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.006
    [25] De Prato G, Nepelski D, 2014. Global technological collaboration network:network analysis of international co-inventions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3):358-375. doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9285-4
    [26] Dong J Q, Yang C H, 2016. Being central is a double-edged sword:knowledge network centrality and new product development in U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113:379-385. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.011
    [27] Fischer M M, Griffith D A, 2008. Modeling spatial autocorrelation in spatial interaction data:an application to patent citation data in the European Union. Journal of Regional Science, 48(5):969-989. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2008.00572.x
    [28] Fleming L, King C, Juda A I, 2007. Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science, 18(6):938-954. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0289
    [29] Gui Q C, Liu C L, Du D B, 2018a. Does network position foster knowledge production? Evidence from international scientific collaboration network. Growth and Change, 49(4):594-611. doi: 10.1111/grow.12263
    [30] Gui Q C, Liu C L, Du D B, 2018b. International knowledge flows and the role of proximity. Growth and Change, 49(3):532-547. doi: 10.1111/grow.12245
    [31] Hazir C S, Autant-Bernard C, 2014. Determinants of cross-regional R&D collaboration:some empirical evidence from European biotechnology. The Annals of Regional Science, 53(2):369-393. doi: 10.1007/s00168-014-0606-4
    [32] He J, Fallah M H, 2014. Dynamics of inventor networks and the evolution of technology clusters. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(6):2174-2200. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12007
    [33] Heimeriks G, Boschma R, 2014. The path-and place-dependent nature of scientific knowledge production in biotech 1986-2008. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(2):339-364. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbs052
    [34] Hoekman J, Frenken K, Tijssen R J W, 2010. Research collaboration at a distance:changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy, 39(5):662-673. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.012
    [35] Laursen K, Reichstein T, Salter A, 2011. Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university-industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4):507-523. doi: 10.1080/00343400903401618
    [36] Leszczyńska D, Khachlouf N, 2018. How proximity matters in interactive learning and innovation:a study of the Venetian glass industry. Industry and Innovation, 25(9):874-896. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2018.1431524
    [37] Li Y C, Phelps N A, 2017. Knowledge polycentricity and the evolving Yangtze River Delta megalopolis. Regional Studies, 51(7):1035-1047. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1240868
    [38] Li Y C, Phelps N A, 2018a. Megalopolis unbound:knowledge collaboration and functional polycentricity within and beyond the Yangtze River Delta Region in China, 2014. Urban Studies, 55(2):443-460. doi: 10.1177/0042098016656971
    [39] Li Yingcheng, Phelps Nicholas A, 2018b. Articulating China's science and technology:knowledge collaboration networks within and beyond the Yangtze River Delta megalopolis in China. Chinese Geographical Science, 28(2):247-260. doi: 10.1007/s11769-018-0944-8
    [40] Liu Chengliang, Gui Qinchang, Duan Dezhong et al., 2017a. Structural heterogeneity and proximity mechanism of global scientific collaboration network based on co-authored papers. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(4):737-752. (in Chinese)
    [41] Ma Haitao, Fang Chuanglin, Lin Sainan et al., 2018. Hierarchy, clusters, and spatial differences in Chinese inter-city networks constructed by scientific collaborators. Journal of Geographical Science, 28(12):1793-1809. doi: 10.1007/s11442-018-1579-5
    [42] Matthiessen C W, Schwarz A W, Find S, 2010. World cities of scientific knowledge:systems, networks and potential dynamics. An analysis based on bibliometric indicators. Urban Studies, 47(9):1879-1897. doi: 10.1177/0042098010372683
    [43] Miörner J, Zukauskaite E, Trippl M et al., 2018. Creating institutional preconditions for knowledge flows in cross-border regions. Environment and Planning C:Politics and Space, 36(2):201-218. doi: 10.1177/2399654417704664
    [44] Mitze T, Strotebeck F, 2018. Centrality and get-richer mechanisms in interregional knowledge networks. Regional Studies, 52(11):1477-1489. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2018.1424992
    [45] Mitze T, Strotebeck F, 2019. Determining factors of interregional research collaboration in Germany's biotech network:capacity, proximity, policy? Technovation, 80-81:40-53. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.11.001
    [46] Montobbio F, Sterzi V, 2013. The globalization of technology in emerging markets:a gravity model on the determinants of international patent collaborations. World Development, 44:281-299. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.11.017
    [47] Nepelski D, De Prato G, 2018. The structure and evolution of ICT global innovation network. Industry and Innovation, 25(10):940-965. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2017.1343129
    [48] Nooteboom B, 2000. Learning by interaction:absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4(1):69-92. doi: 10.1023/A:1009941416749
    [49] Pan R K, Kaski K, Fortunato S, 2012. World citation and collaboration networks:uncovering the role of geography in science. Scientific Reports, 2(1):902. doi: 10.1038/srep00902
    [50] Plotnikova T, Rake B, 2014. Collaboration in pharmaceutical research:exploration of country-level determinants. Scientometrics, 98(2):1173-1202. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1182-6
    [51] Romero C C, 2018. Personal and business networks within Chilean biotech. Industry and Innovation, 25(9):841-873. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2018.1441013
    [52] Scherngell T, Barber M J, 2009. Spatial interaction modelling of cross-region R&D collaborations:empirical evidence from the 5th EU Framework Programme. Papers in Regional Science, 88(3):531-546. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2008.00215.x
    [53] Scherngell T, Barber M J, 2011. Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research collaborations:evidence from the fifth EU Framework Programme. The Annals of Regional Science, 46(2):247-266. doi: 10.1007/s00168-009-0334-3
    [54] Scherngell T, Hu Y J, 2011. Collaborative knowledge production in China:regional evidence from a gravity model approach. Regional Studies, 45(6):755-772. doi:10.1080/003434010037 13373
    [55] Ter Wal A L J, 2014. The dynamics of the inventor network in German biotechnology:Geographic proximity versus triadic closure. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(3), 589-620. doi: 10.2307/26158732
    [56] Ter Wal A L J, Boschma R, 2011. Co-evolution of firms, industries and networks in space. Regional Studies, 45(7):919-933. doi: 10.1080/00343400802662658
    [57] Yoon J, Blumer A, Lee K, 2006. An algorithm for modularity analysis of directed and weighted biological networks based on edge-betweenness centrality. Bioinformatics, 22(24):3106-3108. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl533
  • [1] Hongqiang JIANG, Ye WEI, Lin MEI, Zhaobo WANG.  Multiscale Characteristics and Connection Mechanisms of Attraction Networks: A Trajectory Data Mining Approach Leveraging Geotagged Data . Chinese Geographical Science, 2024, (): 1-15. doi: 10.1007/s11769-024-1417-x
    [2] Zhi ZHENG, Weidong LIU, Zhouying SONG.  Does the Belt and Road Initiative Promote Value Chain Connection Between China and the Silk Road Countries? . Chinese Geographical Science, 2021, 31(6): 979-995. doi: 10.1007/s11769-021-1237-1
    [3] Yumei LIN, Peng LI, Zhiming FENG, Yanzhao YANG, Zhen YOU, Fuxin ZHU.  Climate Suitability Assessment of Human Settlements for Regions along the Belt and Road . Chinese Geographical Science, 2021, 31(6): 996-1010. doi: 10.1007/s11769-021-1241-5
    [4] HUANG Qinshi, ZHU Xigang, LIU Chunhui, WU Wei, LIU Fengbao, ZHANG Xinyi.  Spatial-temporal Evolution and Determinants of the Belt and Road Ini-tiative: A Maximum Entropy Gravity Model Approach . Chinese Geographical Science, 2020, 30(5): 839-854. doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1144-x
    [5] TONG Huali, SHI Peiji, LUO Jun, LIU Xiaoxiao.  The Structure and Pattern of Urban Network in the Lanzhou-Xining Urban Agglomeration . Chinese Geographical Science, 2020, 30(1): 59-74. doi: 10.1007/s11769-019-1090-7
    [6] LI Yingcheng, Nicholas A. PHELPS.  Articulating China's Science and Technology: Knowledge Collaboration Networks Within and Beyond the Yangtze River Delta Megalopolis in China . Chinese Geographical Science, 2018, 28(2): 247-260. doi: 10.1007/s11769-018-0944-8
    [7] Shen Zehao, Wang Yanglin, Fu Bojie.  Corridors and Networks in Landscape：Structure, Functions and Ecological Effects . Chinese Geographical Science, 2014, 0(1): 1-4. doi: 10.1007/s11769-014-0668-3
    [8] WANG Shijun, WANG Yongchao, WANG Dan.  Spatial Structure of Central Places in Jilin Central Urban Agglomeration, Jilin Province, China . Chinese Geographical Science, 2014, 0(3): 375-383. doi: 10.1007/s11769-014-0684-3
    [9] WEN Zhaofei, ZHANG Ce, ZHANG Shuqing, et al.  Effects of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index and Related wavebands′ Characteristics on Detecting Spatial Heterogeneity Using Variogram-based Analysis . Chinese Geographical Science, 2012, 22(2): 188-195.
    [10] WANG Kaiyong, GAO Xiaolu, CHEN Tian.  Influencing Factors for Formation of Urban and Rural Spatial Structure in Metropolis Fringe Area——Taking Shuangliu County of Chengdu in China as a Case . Chinese Geographical Science, 2008, 18(3): 224-234. doi: 10.1007/s11769-008-0224-0
    [11] LUO Shougui, Andrew JOHNSTON, CHEN Dongchun.  Approach to Delimiting Metropolitan Regions' Boundary and Grading Urban Hierarchy Within a Metropolitan Region——A Case Study of Shanghai Metropolitan Region . Chinese Geographical Science, 2008, 18(3): 197-205. doi: 10.1007/s11769-008-0197-z
    [12] ZHU Xiao-hua, Patel NILANCHAL, ZUO Wei, YANG Xiu-chun.  FRACTAL ANALYSIS APPLIED TO SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF CHINA'S VEGETATION . Chinese Geographical Science, 2006, 16(1): 48-55.
    [13] QIN Gan, ZHANG Ping-yu, JIAO Bin.  FORMATION MECHANISM AND SPATIAL PATTERN OF URBAN AGGLOMERATION IN CENTRAL JILIN OF CHINA . Chinese Geographical Science, 2006, 16(2): 154-159.
    [14] WANG Xue-lei, NING Long-mei, HU Wang-bin.  APPLICATION OF ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS TO ASSESSING THE ECOLOGICAL VULNERABILITY OF WETLANDS IN THE JIANGHAN PLAIN . Chinese Geographical Science, 2003, 13(3): 272-276.
    [15] LI Li-mei, TAO Wei.  SPATIAL STRUCTURE EVOLUTION OF SYSTEM OF RECREATION BUSINESS DISTRICT-A Case of Suzhou City . Chinese Geographical Science, 2003, 13(4): 370-377.
    [16] XU Jian-hua, LU Yan, AI Nan-shan, YUE Wen-ze.  A STUDY ON LANDSCAPE MOSAIC STRUCTUREIN URBAN-RURAL AREA IN NORTHWESTOF CHINA WITH RS AND GIS──A Case Study of Xigu District in Lanzhou City . Chinese Geographical Science, 2001, 11(4): 366-376.
    [17] LU La-chang, XU Xue-qiang.  THE FORMATION, EVOLUTION AND OPTIMAZATION OF TERRITORIAL STRUCTURE IN THE SOUTHERN CHINA . Chinese Geographical Science, 2000, 10(1): 44-51.
    [18] 张平宇.  UNITED INTERNATIONAL CENTRAL CITY: A NEW SPATIAL ORGANIZATION MODEL IN TUMEN RIVER ECONOMY DEVELOPMENT ZONE . Chinese Geographical Science, 1998, 8(4): 370-376.
    [19] 张兆干, 张建新, 杨剑民, 申屏.  RESEARCH ON THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF KARST MASSIF ——Taking the Basin of the Houzhai Subterranean Stream in Puding Country for Example . Chinese Geographical Science, 1998, 8(3): 256-263.
    [20] 刘继生.  A FRACTAL STUDY ON URBAN SYSTEM IN NORTHEAST CHINA . Chinese Geographical Science, 1996, 6(3): 272-281.
  • 加载中
WeChat 点击查看大图
计量
  • 文章访问数:  182
  • HTML全文浏览量:  19
  • PDF下载量:  28
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2019-09-10

Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions

doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1161-9
  • 1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;
  • 2. Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;
  • 3. College of Resource and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
    • 基金项目:

    Under the auspices of Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XDA20010103)

    通讯作者: LIU Hui.E-mail:liuh@igsnrr.ac.cn
  • 收稿日期: 2019-09-10

摘要: Scientific collaboration has become an important part of the people-to-people exchanges in the Belt and Road initiative, and remarkable progress has been made since 2013. Taking the 65 countries along the Belt and Road (BRI countries) as the research areas and using collaborated Web of Science (WOS) core collection papers to construct an international scientific collaboration matrix, the paper explores the spatial structure, hierarchy and formation mechanisms of scientific collaboration networks of 65 countries along the Belt and Road. The results show that: 1) Beyond the Belt and Road regions (BRI regions), Central & Eastern Europe, China and West Asia & North Africa have formed a situation in which they all have the most external links with other countries beyond BRI regions. China has the dominant role over other BRI countries in generating scientific links. The overall spatial structure has changed to a skeleton structure consisting of many dense regions, such as Europe, North America, East Asia and Oceania. 2) Within the Belt and Road regions, Central & Eastern Europe has become the largest collaboration partner with other sub-regions in BRI countries. The spatial structure of scientific collaboration networks has transformed from the ‘dual core’ composed of China and the Central & Eastern Europe region, to the ‘multi-polarization’ composed of ‘one zone and multi-points’. 3) The hierarchical structure of scientific collaboration networks presents a typical ‘core-periphery’ structure, and changes from ‘single core’ to ‘double cores’. 4) Among the formation mechanisms of scientific collaboration networks, scientific research strength and social proximity play the most important roles, while geographical distance gradually weakens the hindrance to scientific collaboration.

English Abstract

GU Weinan, LIU Hui. Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions[J]. 中国地理科学, 2020, 30(6): 959-975. doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1161-9
引用本文: GU Weinan, LIU Hui. Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions[J]. 中国地理科学, 2020, 30(6): 959-975. doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1161-9
shu
GU Weinan, LIU Hui. Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions[J]. Chinese Geographical Science, 2020, 30(6): 959-975. doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1161-9
Citation: GU Weinan, LIU Hui. Spatial Structure, Hierarchy and Formation Mechanisms of Scientific Collaboration Networks: Evidence of the Belt and Road Regions[J]. Chinese Geographical Science, 2020, 30(6): 959-975. doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1161-9
shu

    全文HTML

参考文献 (57)

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回

    Copyright © Editorial office of Chinese Geographical Science

    Tel: +86-0431-85542219   Email: egeoscien@neigae.ac.cn