Just over ten years ago, first-class articles in China were very rare. Many professors had never published one, and one article seemed very high-end. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the quantity and quality of Chinese scientific papers have experienced explosive growth, and the standards for talents have also been rising. Now if you want to get an associate professor position in an institution like HKUST, five first-class articles are considered the starting price. When I go out to introduce research results, if it is not of this magnitude, I would be embarrassed to say hello to others.
The research level of first- and second-tier universities in the United States is very high. Any professor you pick is a well-known figure, and there are also a large number of Nobel Prize winners. Yes, many Nobel Prize winners work in second-tier universities in the United States.
Not long ago (ten years?), the overall research level of Chinese universities was not comparable to that of the United States. There was a huge gap. However, China is making very rapid progress. I think the research level of China's first-rate universities is now close to that of second-rate universities in the United States. At least people's expectations have changed. It is no longer surprising that Chinese research units produce world-class results. Progress is also reflected in breadth. In the past, only China's top universities could hope to conduct serious research, but now even some second-tier universities publish articles in "Nature" and "Science" from time to time.
China’s rapid upward momentum can be seen from the comparison of WFCs in various countries in 2014 and 2013. The United States fell by 0.8, Germany rose by 1.0, Japan fell by 2.3, and the United Kingdom rose by 0.9. Then France, Canada, Spain, Switzerland, and South Korea in the sixth to tenth places all fell. What about China? Up 14.9! What is this concept? If the growth rate of 14.9 is maintained, it will double in five years. If both China and the United States maintain the change rates of 14.9 and -0.8, China will catch up with the United States in 8.7 years.
But this is not over yet. Nature Publishing Group's WFC data is updated monthly. What is shown now is the statistics from June 2014 to May 2015. Compared with the data in December 2014, exactly half a year has passed. In just half a year, China's WFC has changed from 5026 to 6318, an increase of 25.7!
At this rate, it will increase by 58 in two and a half years, or one year, to 7,942. Therefore, don’t be surprised if you see reports in the future that China’s WFC in 2015 reached 7,000 or even 8,000. At the same time, the WFC of the United States changed from 18,643 to 17,448, a decrease of 6.4; the WFC of Germany increased from 4,077 to 3,939, a decrease of 3.4.
In half a year, the ratio of the United States to China shrank from 3.6 to 2.8, and the ratio of China to Germany expanded from 1.3 to 1.6. If this staggering speed continues, the time it will take for China to surpass the United States will not be 9 years, but 3 years! We might see it in 2017! In addition, Russia (338) ranks 19th, and China is 18.7 times that of Russia.
There is another dimension that can be examined. The WFC mentioned earlier comes from the statistics of 68 first-class journals, but the academic status of these journals is not equal. For example, Qiu Qianren and Wang Chongyang in "The Legend of the Condor Heroes" are both first-class masters, but Wang Chongyang is still much better than Qiu Qianren. . "Nature" and "Science" have a higher academic reputation and publication difficulty than most other first-class journals, and we can regard them as representatives of top journals. Of course, this representativeness is lower, because there are too many landmark papers published in history outside of Nature and Science (including many that won the Nobel Prize), far more than those 68 first-class papers published. Outside of journals, but it may still be a reference.
Nature Publishing Group has also given a WFC limited to these two journals. Let’s use it as an indicator of top papers published by each country or research institution. From June 2014 to May 2015, the highest among countries was the United States (860), followed by the United Kingdom (144), Germany (116), France (67), and China (58) only ranked fifth.
The highest research institution is Harvard University (75), while the Chinese Academy of Sciences (17) only ranks 15th.
Although there are factors here that Nature and Science pay special attention to Britain and the United States, it also reflects that our status in top-level papers is lower than that in first-class papers. In other words, our advantage lies mainly in sub-top results. As will be discussed later, this is a somewhat universal phenomenon and is related to the history and culture of China and the West.
Patent data from the five major intellectual property offices
The output of basic research can be measured by scientific papers. Next, let’s look at the output of applied technology, measured by patents. The world's five largest intellectual property offices are the European Patent Office, the Japanese Patent Office, the Korean Intellectual Property Office, the China State Intellectual Property Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The five offices handle 80% of the world's patent applications and undertake 95% of the work of the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
Since 2012, the five bureaus have jointly released statistical reports every year. At the beginning of 2015, the Five Bureaus released the main statistical data report for 2014. The complete version of the 2014 Statistical Report for the Five Bureaus will be completed by the end of 2015. Patents are divided into invention patents, utility model patents and design patents. Obviously invention patents are the most closely related to technological level. The main statistical data reports of the five offices all list data on invention patents.
In 2014, the top five patent bureaus received 2.3 million invention patent applications, of which the largest number came from China, with 928,000, accounting for 40%! Followed by the United States, 579,000 pieces. Japan, Europe, and South Korea are 326,000, 274,000, and 210,000 respectively. This is the fourth consecutive year that China has ranked first in the number of invention patent applications. Compared with 2013, China also has the highest growth rate, reaching 12.5. The growth rates of the United States, Japan, Europe and South Korea were 1.3, -0.7, 3.1 and 2.8 respectively.
Let’s look at the authorization of invention patents. In 2014, the five patent offices authorized 955,400 invention patents, of which the United States had the largest number, with 301,000, accounting for 31%. Followed by China, 233,000 pieces. Japan, South Korea, and Europe are 227,000, 130,000, and 65,000 respectively. China has the highest growth rate of 12.3, and the growth rates of the United States, Japan, South Korea and Europe are 8.2, -18.0, 1.9 and -3.1 respectively.
One thing to note is that applicants to each IP office come from all over the world, not just their own country. Among the applicants to the China National Intellectual Property Office, 86 are from China and 4 are from the United States. Among the applicants at the USPTO, only 50 are from the United States and 3 are from China. In terms of authorization, among the patentees of the China State Intellectual Property Office, 70 and 7 are from China and the United States respectively. Among the patentees of the US Patent and Trademark Office, 48 and 2 are from the United States and China respectively. Obviously, the degree of internationalization of US patents is much higher than that of China, and its ability to absorb foreign intellectual achievements is worth learning from.