scholarly journals Paleontology: advancing China's international leadership

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-176
Author(s):  
Hepeng Jia
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Associate Editor ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
State University ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Chinese Academy Of Sciences ◽  
The Status ◽  
Organismic Evolution ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Robust Evidence

Abstract In recent years, Chinese scientists have achieved significant progress in paleontological discoveries and scientific studies. Series of studies published in top journals, such as Science, Nature and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), have astonished the world by presenting beautiful fossils that furnish robust evidence to enrich the understanding of organismic evolution, major extinctions and stratigraphy. It has been portrayed as the heyday in the paleontology of China. What is the status of the field? What factors have caused the avalanche of fossil discoveries in China? What implications can these new discoveries provide for our understanding of current evolution theories? How, given their significant contribution to the world's paleontology scholarship, can Chinese scientists play a due leadership role in the field? At an online forum organized by the National Science Review (NSR), its associate editor-in-chief, Zhonghe Zhou, asked four scientists in the field as well as NSR executive editor-in-chief Mu-ming Poo to join the discussion. Jin Meng Paleobiologist at American Museum of Natural History Mu-ming Poo Neurobiologist at Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Shuzhong Shen Stratigrapher at Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Shuhai Xiao Paleobiologist and geobiologist at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Zhonghe Zhou (Chair) Paleobiologist at Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), Chinese Academy of Sciences

Social Origins of the Chinese Scientific Elite

1999 ◽  
Vol 160 ◽  
pp. 992-1018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cong Cao
Keyword(s):  
Biological Sciences ◽  
Social Stratification ◽  
Family Background ◽  
The United States ◽  
Occupational Prestige ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Chinese Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Scientific Elite ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Mathematics And Physics

The literature on China's social stratification and mobility has discussed the roles of family background and an individual's education attainment. This article aims to extend the existing literature by examining the interplay of these two aspects in fostering a homogeneous group of scientists, the members (yuanshi) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS, Zhongguo kexueyuan). Since its establishment in 1955, honorific CAS membership has been awarded to outstanding Chinese scientists in their respective fields. As of the end of 1997, a total of 859 Chinese natural scientists, including 40 women, had been elected to the five Academic Divisions of the CAS – Mathematics and Physics, Chemistry, Biological Sciences, Earth Sciences, and Technological Sciences (Table 1) – of whom 610 were alive. They have been renowned, nationally if not internationally, for their academic achievements and contributions, and they have a reputation and prestige similar to those enjoyed by their counterparts in other countries, such as members of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States and fellows of the Royal Society in Britain. Because the occupational prestige of scientists is very high in China, as it is in other countries, and following similar research on the scientific elite, it is reasonable to define CAS members as the Chinese scientific elite.

Science and the Growth of the American Republic

1976 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 359-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Bernard Cohen
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Public Image ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
American Science ◽  
Self Image ◽  
Scientific Teaching ◽  
The Status ◽  
Order Of Magnitude ◽  
Direction Of Movement ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Just a few years ago, it was estimated that 90 percent of all the scientists and engineers who had ever lived were still alive; and that more than half of them were resident in the United States. These numbers show the status of America as a major scientific nation, and the reason why this is a fact of critical importance for the historical analyst in 1976 is that only 40 years ago America could probably still be classed as an “undeveloped” (or “developing”) country on the highest scale of the international scientific community. Before addressing myself to the causes of this change and its consequences for American political and social thought and action, for the American conscience and for America's public image and self-image, let me indicate the kind of evidence that supports my assertion that America might be considered “underdeveloped” with respect to the sciences, prior to 1935. First of all, there was an almost wholly one-way direction of movement of graduate and postdoctoral students: eastward over the Atlantic to the great European centers of scientific teaching and research. Although there were some fields in which Americans had been making outstanding contributions, such as experimental and theoretical genetics, by and large the great overarching theories that either introduced order into one of the sciences, or brought diverse branches of science into an unexpected relationship, or revolutionized much of science, were produced by Europeans: Rutherford, the Curies, Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac. In 1963, in an address on the occasion of the centenary celebrations of our National Academy of Sciences, John F. Kennedy observed that of the 670 members of the Academy, 163 (or one out of every four) had been born in foreign lands—a figure that differed in order of magnitude from the condition in any other country, and that showed the degree to which the high estate that American science had gained was owing to the infusion of scientists from abroad.

scholarly journals A bibliometric analysis of Soil remediation Based on Massive research literature data During 1988-2018

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ya Hu ◽  
Jichang Han ◽  
Zenghui Sun ◽  
Huanyuan Wang ◽  
Xiang Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soil Remediation ◽  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Chinese Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
The Status ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Influential Journal

AbstractSoil is an important part of the ecosystem with significant roles that help human population sustain. Research on prevention and remediation of soil pollution has been carried out when 1985. This study analyzed the 1988–2018 soil remediation dataset in the Web of Science database by bibliometric methods to illustrate the current research trends and hot topics of quantitative analysis and soil remediation in the world. To further identify the major soil contamination topics, we employed social network analysis. The results indicate that the field of soil remediation has entered a stage of rapid progress. The United States has a strong overall strength with the largest number of published articles and larger impact. China ranks second. We identified Journal of hazardous materials as the most influential journal and Chinese academy of sciences as the most influential institution. Academic cooperation showed an increasing trend at the author, institutional, and national levels with an average level of cooperation of 3.57, 1.66, and 1.16, respectively. However, the growth rate of cooperation at the national level is relatively low. In addition, the frequency and co-word analyses of keywords revealed the important research topics. “heavy metals”, “PAH”, “bioremediation”, “Phytoremediation” and “Electrokinetic remediation” were identified as the hot topics. The findings of this study will help researchers understand the status of soil remediation as well as provide guidance for future research.

scholarly journals China's funding system and research innovation

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Qiu
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Associate Editor ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Total Output ◽  
The Past ◽  
The World Bank ◽  
Chinese Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Peking University ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Tongji University

Abstract In the past decade, China's total expenditure on research and development (R&D) has been increasing by about 20% per year. And the total output of scientific research from China has not failed to impress: a 2011 study by Britain's Royal Society found that, in 2004–08, the country produced 10% of the world's published scientific articles, putting it second after the United States. But a study conducted by the World Bank and China's State Council concluded in the year 2012 that Chinese research quality falls short. It noted that the country produces relatively few high-impact articles, and that the majority of Chinese patents constitute minor novelties rather than genuine innovations. So what has gone wrong? And what needs to be changed to spur innovation in China significantly? In a forum organized by National Science Review, its executive associate editor Mu-ming Poo asked four leading scientists in China. Yadong Li Chemist of Tsinghua University in Beijing (Courtesy of Yadong Li) Yi Rao Biologist of Peking University in Beijing (Courtesy of Yi Rao) Dingsheng Wang Physicist of Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing (Courtesy of Dingsheng Wang) Pinxian Wang Geologist of Tongji University in Shanghai (Courtesy of Pinxian Wang) Mu-ming Poo (Chair) Neuroscientist of Institute of Neuroscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai (Courtesy of Mu-ming Poo)

scholarly journals Reviewer Acknowledgements for Journal of Mathematics Research, Vol. 9, No. 2

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 155
Author(s):  
Sophia Wang
Keyword(s):  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
State University ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Bulgarian Academy ◽  
University Of Houston ◽  
Institute Of Technology ◽  
Mathematics Research ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Journal of Mathematics Research wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Their help and contributions in maintaining the quality of the journal is greatly appreciated.Many authors, regardless of whether Journal of Mathematics Research publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers.Reviewers for Volume 9, Number 2  Alberto Simoes, University of Beira Interior, PortugalAli Berkol, Space and Defense Technologies & Baskent University, TurkeyArman Aghili, University of Guilan, IranCecilia Maria Fernandes Fonseca, Polytechnic of Guarda, PortugalGane Sam Lo, Universite Gaston Berger de Saint-Louis, SenegalMarek Brabec, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Czech RepublicMaria Alessandra Ragusa, University of Catania, ItalyMohammad Sajid, Qassim University, Saudi ArabiaMohd Hafiz, Universiti Sains Malaysia, , MalaysiaN. V. Ramana Murty, Andhra Loyola College, IndiaOlivier Heubo-Kwegna, Saginaw Valley State University, USAOmur Deveci, Kafkas University, TurkeyÖzgür Ege, Celal Bayar University, TurkeyPeng Zhang, State University of New York at Stony Brook, USAPhilip Philipoff, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, BulgariaRovshan Bandaliyev, National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, AzerbaijanSanjib Kumar Datta, University of Kalyani, IndiaSelcuk Koyuncu, University of North Georgia, USASergiy Koshkin, University of Houston Downtown, USAShenghua Ni, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, USAVishnu Narayan Mishra, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, IndiaWaleed Al-Rawashdeh, Montana Tech, USAYifan Wang, University of Houston, USAYoussef Ei Foutayeni, Modeling and Simulation Laboratory Lams Hassan II University, MoroccoYoussef El-Khatib, United Arab Emirates University, United Arab EmiratesZoubir Dahmani, University of Mostaganem, Algeria Sophia WangOn behalf of,The Editorial Board of Journal of Mathematics ResearchCanadian Center of Science and Education

Mathematics, Peace, and the Cold War

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 556-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brit Shields
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
New York University ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Political Role ◽  
Exchange Program ◽  
Mathematical Sciences ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

This paper seeks to combine studies of émigré scientists, Cold War American science, and cultural histories of mathematical communities by analyzing Richard Courant’s participation in the National Academy of Sciences interacademy exchange program with the Soviet Union in the 1960s. Following his dismissal by the Nazi government from his post as Director of the Göttingen Mathematics Institute in 1933, Courant spent a year at the University of Cambridge, and then immigrated to the United States where he developed the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University. Courant’s participation with the National Academy of Sciences interacademy exchange program at the end of his career highlights his ideologies about the mathematics discipline, the international mathematics community, and the political role mathematicians could play in contributing to international peace through scientific diplomacy. Courant’s Cold War scientific identity emerges from his activities as an émigré mathematician, institution builder, and international “ambassador.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document