Advertisement

NanoEthics

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 113–118 | Cite as

Scientific Research on Nanotechnology in Latin American Journals Published in SciELO: Bibliometric Analysis of Gender Differences

  • Elizabeth Duran
  • Katherine Astroza
  • Jaime Ocaranza-Ozimica
  • Damary Peñailillo
  • Iskra Pavez-Soto
  • Rodrigo Ramirez-TagleEmail author
Original Research Paper

Abstract

Papers on nanotechnology in the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) database were studied bibliometrically. The terms ‘nanotechnology’, ‘nanoparticle’, ‘graphene’, ‘fullerene’, ‘nanotube’ and ‘quantum dot’ were used for the search in their singular and plural forms in three languages (English, Portuguese and Spanish), and a total of 1205 papers were selected for the study to assess the frequency rates of the study variables. The results of the study are presented in this article focusing on gender differences.

Keywords

Nanotechnology Bibliometrics Latin America Nanoparticle Papers Gender 

Notes

Funding information

Research project on teaching funded by the Department of Teacher Education of the Bernardo O’Higgins University (Universidad Bernardo O’Higgins – UBO) and the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico – FONDECYT) 11130007 and 1170947.

References

  1. 1.
    Roco MC (2011) The long view of nanotechnology development: the national nanotechnology initiative at 10 years. J Nanopart Res 13(2):427–445.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0192-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roco MC, Mirkin CA, Hersam MC (2011) Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020: summary of international study. J Nanopart Res 13(3):897–919.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0275-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen H, Roco MC (2009) Mapping nanotechnology innovations and knowledge : global and longitudinal patent and literature analysis. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dang Y, Zhang Y, Fan L, Chen H, Roco MC (2010) Trends in worldwide nanotechnology patent applications: 1991 to 2008. J Nanopart Res 12(3):687–706.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9831-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ríos-Gómez C, Herrero-Solana V (2005) La Producción Científica Latinoamericana Y La Ciencia Mundial: Una Revisión Bibliográfica (1989–2003). Rev Interam Bibliot 28(1):43–61Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jorge RA, de Moya Anegón F, Jorge RA, Anegón FDM, Arencibia JR, de Moya Anegón F, Jorge RA, de Moya Anegón F (2008) La evaluación de la investigación científica: una aproximación teórica desde la cienciometría. Acimed 17(4):1–27Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beaudry C, Larivière V (2016) Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine. Res Policy 45(9):1790–1817.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Urry M (2015) Science and gender: scientists must work harder on equality. Nature 528(7583):471–473.  https://doi.org/10.1038/528471a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendieta Ramírez A (2015) Legitimidad o reconocimiento? Las investigadoras del SNI. Retos Y Propuestas. Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de PueblaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bendels MHK, Brüggmann D, Schöffel N, Groneberg DA, Akhabue E, Lautenbach E, Bates T et al (2016) Gendermetrics.NET: a novel software for analyzing the gender representation in scientific authoring. J Occup Med Toxicol 11(1):43.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-016-0133-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Braun T, Schubert A, Zsindely S (1997) Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics 38(2):321–325.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Camps D (2008) Limitaciones de los indicadores bibliometricos en la evaluacion de la actividad cientifica biomedica. Colombia Medica 39(1):74–79Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pardo-Guerra JP (2011) Mapping emergence across the Atlantic: some (tentative) lessons on nanotechnology in Latin America. Technol Soc 33(1–2):94–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boyle PK, Smith LK, Cooper NJ, Williams KS, O’Connor H (2015) Women are funded more fairly in social science. Nature 525:181–183.  https://doi.org/10.1038/525181a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Efraín-García P, García-Zorita C, Sanz-Casado E (2014) Paridad equivale a igualdad? Eficiencia de la producción científica de las investigadoras venezolanas. Investigacion Bibliotecologica 28(62):101–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-358X(14)72568-7 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    CONICYT (2016) Realidad nacional en formación y promoción de mujeres científicas en ciencia, tecnología, ingeniería y matemáticas. https://www.conicyt.cl/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/PPT-Estudio-Realidad-NACIONAL-Genero-y-STEM_16_CONICYT-ISONOMA.pdf. Accessed July 2019Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programa de Magíster en Ciencias Químicas y BiológicasUniversidad Bernardo O HigginsSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Universidad Bernardo O’HigginsSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Universidad Católica Silva Henríquez, Escuela de KinesiologíaSantiagoChile
  4. 4.Facultad de Ingeniería, Ciencia y TecnologíaUniversidad Bernardo O’HigginsSantiagoChile
  5. 5.Centro de Investigación en Educación (CIE)Universidad Bernardo O’HigginsSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations