Table of Content

01 August 2025, Volume 43 Issue 8 Previous Issue   

For Selected:

Download Citations EndNote Reference Manager ProCite BibTeX RefWorks

Toggle Thumbnails

Select

The Development Trajectory of Big Science and the Transformation of Scientific Organizations Guangcai Yan 2025, 43 (8):  1-15.  doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.08.001 Abstract ( 265 )   HTML ( 10 )   PDF (671KB) ( 103 )   Save In a narrow sense, the concept of Big Science specifically refers to large scientific facilities or big science projects, while in a broader sense, it encompasses the global network of scientific openness and cooperation. As an organized phenomenon in science, Big Science first emerged in the 17th century. After World War II, with the intervention of state powers, research conducted through large-scale scientific facilities with significant investments and constructions overturned the traditional little science driven by individual interests. After the Cold War, with the easing of international relations and the implementation of science diplomacy, as well as the expansion and internationalization of global higher education, transnational large-scale scientific cooperation aimed at common human interests, such as international big science projects, emerged. This marked the entry of science into an era of global open science. However, Big Science does not replace little science; instead, they coexist and interact. Today, the core connotation and spiritual essence of Big Science are international openness and cooperation, leveraging the construction of large platforms and interactive networks to gather high-level international talents, and promoting transnational, cross-sectoral, and interdisciplinary cooperation for mutual benefit. Universities and the scientific community in China face numerous practical obstacles and institutional mechanisms that need to be explored to meet the requirements of the Big Science era. References | Related Articles | Metrics

Select

Configurations of Power in Global Science Simon Marginson 2025, 43 (8):  16-29.  doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.08.002 Abstract ( 257 )   HTML ( 11 )   PDF (944KB) ( 156 )   Save The last three decades saw the evolution of a networked global science system, sustained by bottom-up collaboration and codified by journal publishing and bibliometric inclusion, which has become the epistemic leader in the natural sciences. The system is open and has facilitated all-round science development and global multi-polarity. There is ongoing synergy and also tension between global science and national purposes; since the late 2010s collaboration has been destabilised by geopolitical tensions and the assertion of national interests. The potentials of global science are also limited in another way: it is dominated by scientists and universities in the Anglosphere and almost entirely published in English. There is a fundamental lack of fit between the post-colonial worldwide distribution of capacity and the neo-colonial structure of institutional and cultural power. Taken together these factors place the future of global knowledge in question. A radical diversification of knowledge contents via a regime of multiple translations can more effectively embed the global system. Figures and Tables | References | Related Articles | Metrics

Select

Patterns of Scientific Attrition: A Quantitative Analysis of Research Landscapes in OECD Countries with Methodological Considerations Marek Kwiek, Lukasz Szymula 2025, 43 (8):  30-50.  doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.08.003 Abstract ( 223 )   HTML ( 14 )   PDF (2218KB) ( 65 )   Save In this paper, we explore how members of the scientific community leave academic science and how attrition (defined as ceasing to publish) differs across genders, academic disciplines, and over time. Our approach is cohort-based and longitudinal. We track individual male and female scientists over time and quantify the phenomenon traditionally referred to as “leaving science.” Using publication metadata from Scopus—a global bibliometric database of publications and citations—we follow the details of the publishing careers of scientists from 38 OECD countries who started publishing in 2000 (N = 142,776) and 2010 (N = 232,843). Within a decade, about 50% of scientists stay in science and after 19 years – only about 30%. Our study is restricted to 16 STEMM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine), and we track the individual scholarly output of the two cohorts until 2022. We use survival analysis to compare attrition of men and women scientists. With more women in science and more women within cohorts, attrition is becoming ever less gendered. In addition to the combined aggregated changes at the level of all STEMM disciplines, widely nuanced changes were found to occur at the discipline level and over time. Attrition in science means different things for men versus women depending on the discipline; moreover, it means different things for scientists from different cohorts entering the scientific workforce. Finally, global bibliometric datasets were tested in the current study, opening new opportunities to explore gender and disciplinary differences in attrition. It also describes the methodological challenges and research limitations of using raw structured big data in academic career research, such as identifying gender, age, and discipline. Figures and Tables | References | Related Articles | Metrics

Select

Global Mobility of Scientists in the Era of Big Science：A Content Analysis on the Selected Articles in Web of Sciences’ Journals Mei Li, Wenjie Ruan 2025, 43 (8):  51-65.  doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.08.004 Abstract ( 242 )   HTML ( 12 )   PDF (777KB) ( 96 )   Save In the era of Big Science, the global mobility of scientists has taken on new landscapes. Through a content analysis of selected literature from the Web of Science (WoS), this study provides a synthesized examination of the relationship between Big Science and global scientific mobility, the characteristics of scientists’ global mobility, and its influencing factors. The interplay between Big Science and global scientific mobility is bidirectional: on the one hand, Big Science reinforces global science governance, accelerates the transnational movement of scientists, and expands the spatial scope of mobility by fostering global knowledge networks; on the other hand, scientific mobility enhances research efficiency and quality. Global scientific mobility exhibits distinct characteristics across three dimensions––temporal, spatial, and interpersonal networks. The factors shaping this mobility include pull factors, push factors, personal factors, and intervening obstacles. Figures and Tables | References | Related Articles | Metrics

Select

Distribution Patterns, Agglomeration Drivers, and Mechanisms of Internationally Outstanding Academic Talents Weitan LI 2025, 43 (8):  66-77.  doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.08.005 Abstract ( 291 )   HTML ( 5 )   PDF (777KB) ( 65 )   Save The competitiveness of modern nations is fundamentally rooted in human capital competition. However, China currently confronts a pressing challenge regarding insufficient institutional attractiveness to internationally outstanding academic talents. This study reveals through statistical analysis of Nobel Laureates, Fields Medalists, and Turing Award recipients that internationally outstanding academic talents predominantly cluster within research institutions of the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and France. Through analyzing six paradigmatic cases of elite academic talent clustering—including the Cavendish Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Max Planck Society, Bell Laboratories, Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute—this study identifies static tetrad factors influencing talent aggregation (cultural environment, resource endowment, institutional frameworks, and talent cultivation). It reveals that talent clustering in research organizations inherently constitutes a dynamic equilibrium process where individual career fulfillment and organizational development intertwine, progressing through four evolutionary phases: initial attraction, selective recruitment, sustained retention, and cluster reinforcement. This finding suggests Chinese research institutions should: (1) cultivate research culture to enhance talent magnetism; (2) strengthen resource provisioning to meet developmental demands; (3) optimize management frameworks to unleash institutional dividends; (4) prioritize autonomous cultivation of top innovative talents to bridge competency gaps. Figures and Tables | References | Related Articles | Metrics

Select

Research on the Interdisciplinary Convergence Mechanism in University Driven by Major National Science and Technology Infrastructure Wei Wu, Yiwen Wang, Jiahao Feng 2025, 43 (8):  78-88.  doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.08.006 Abstract ( 209 )   HTML ( 6 )   PDF (752KB) ( 69 )   Save Major national science and technology infrastructure serves as the foundational platform for implementing major national innovation tasks and advancing the frontiers of science and technology. Interdisciplinary convergence manifests throughout its entire lifecycle—from goal-setting and design justification to construction and maintenance. Characterized by the aggregation of high-level innovation resources and the coordination of cross-disciplinary research missions, such infrastructure inherently possesses the capacity to transcend traditional disciplinary barriers and institutional inertia. Consequently, interdisciplinary convergence should constitute both a fundamental requirement and a natural outcome of its construction and operation. As primary organizers and builders of these facilities, universities face a critical challenge in coordinating disciplinary development with infrastructure construction/operation—a pivotal issue in the management practice of the Double First-Class Initiative. This study employs grounded theory methodology to extract operational elements of such infrastructure, supplemented by case studies of six representative facilities involving university participation to validate and synthesize inter-element relationships. Ultimately, a mechanism model is constructed to elucidate how major science and technology infrastructure drives interdisciplinary convergence. The paper reveals the interaction mechanisms between infrastructure development and disciplinary construction, offering novel theoretical perspectives and practical pathways for transforming knowledge production paradigms in higher education institutions. Figures and Tables | References | Related Articles | Metrics

Select

An Endogenous Collaboration Model between Research Universities and National Laboratories: Taking Caltech and JPL as an Example Feng Li 2025, 43 (8):  89-104.  doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.08.007 Abstract ( 167 )   HTML ( 2 )   PDF (879KB) ( 137 )   Save Focusing on the nearly century-long collaborative history between the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), this paper examines Caltech-JPL collaborations in the fields of science, technology, and human resources. The origins of the collaboration can be traced back to a shared aspiration for top talent and a convergence of research interests. However, the partnership encountered challenges due to the distinct research orientations and cultures of the two institutions, leading to periods of instability and deterioration. Eventually, through a process of mutual adaptation and adjustment, a stable and productive collaboration model emerged, serving as an example of an endogenous collaboration model. An endogenous model of collaboration is one that is driven by the internal forces within the organizations resulting from the proximity of the research orientations and cultures of the two institutions, as well as the shared research interests of the researchers of both institutions. Throughout history, the forces driving collaboration have included research autonomy, the public nature of the research field, and the long-term and fundamental nature of the research. The fundamental characteristics of this internally driven model of collaboration are as follows: a harmonious yet distinct research orientation and culture, highly convergent research interests, individual-driven collaborative dynamics, and close yet loose talent connections. Figures and Tables | References | Related Articles | Metrics

Select

Big Science and the Role of University Scientists ：Take SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory as an Example Zhichen Xia, Fan Yang 2025, 43 (8):  105-117.  doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.08.008 Abstract ( 231 )   HTML ( 6 )   PDF (737KB) ( 420 )   Save The increasing reliance of scientific research on resources and technology has intensified the dual tensions between institutionalized collaboration and individual free exploration, as well as between national strategies and academic autonomy. Despite being profoundly constrained by macro-institutional frameworks, university scientists play an indispensable role in the era of big science through their rational choices grounded in agency. During the establishment, transformation, and upgrading phases of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University scientists primarily served as proactive agents, game-changers, and integrators. The multifaceted roles of university scientists follow an operational logic that encompasses: the embeddedness of academic authority within national scientific institutions; the advantageous coupling of academic capital and administrative capabilities, and the coexistence of values pursuing academic freedom while serving national missions. To strengthen the roles of university scientists in the era of big science, viable pathways include: granting university researchers advisory rights in decision-making, enabling open sharing of large scientific facilities, maintaining academic freedom and autonomy under government oversight, leveraging the talent-aggregating function of organized research models, and building inclusive and efficient global scientific collaboration networks. To foster the sustained emergence of scientists within China's universities, it is essential to ground our approach in real-world challenges and explore practical solutions. References | Related Articles | Metrics

Select

The Shift of American Federal Science and Technology Policy and the Rise and Development of Research Universities in Postwar Era: Thoughts on the Development of Research Universities in China Donghai Zhang 2025, 43 (8):  118-128.  doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.08.009 Abstract ( 176 )   HTML ( 6 )   PDF (650KB) ( 66 )   Save The integration of research universities into the national research system has brought about the rise of American research universities and the leading status of American science and technology since World War II. The Bush Report established the basic pattern of the national scientific research system of the United States, yet the U.S. science and technology policy has experienced three shifts since the war. During the cold war, the core driving force behind the U.S. research system was national security. Universities became part of the military-industry-academic complex. Universities undertook basic research and mission-oriented research closely related to national defense, and were involved in big science. After 1980, the U.S. science and technology policy was adjusted to drive economic development through technological innovation, focusing on solving the problem of Federal Patent Licensing to the private sector, which greatly promoted the innovations of universities and their transfer to enterprises, and established close ties between universities and industry. Since 2017, the U.S. science and technology policy has shifted to national security and maintaining technological leadership as the core, and technology protection has been achieved through government intervention. The impact on university research and talent training is emerging. References | Related Articles | Metrics