China — Not The US — Is Now The Global Leader In Science & Tech

[jhungary]

Those papers get peer-reviewed

That is exactly what I said.......

I mean, publishing paper does not equate to the scientific community accept those papers.....

And then publishing these papers and having them making an impact on the sci-tech field is another issue altogether.

More countries can be typed in for reference to see what the actual state of IP earning is cross-country (which gives indication of actual final innovation of consequence, including "science + tech"):

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

Any country can have whatever peer review standards or patent filing trend internally..... but cold hard dollars is what matters most, and also gives larger idea of where things stand in larger science, tech and engineering based behind it (especially new frontier areas).

It is also interesting to see what countries pay for IP:

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

i.e as reference (using most recent year 2021), US earns about 124 billion from the world for IP use. It pays the world around 43 billion.

Japan earns about 48 billion, and spends around 29 billion USD.

China earns about 11 billion and spends around 47 billion USD (i.e more than 4 times it earns).

It is not an IP surplus country....so how can it be a genuine global leader on this front yet?

Yeah, that's what I said too,

I mean you have to have a parameter to distinguish yourself to be the leader of the pack, that parameter is missing with the only thing remotely come to play is not necessarily the yardstick to put the issue at rest...

Money is one of the factor, another I think is more related is the application on the field of technology. I mean as I said before, nobody write any paper for the Dark Ray CT scan, but then this is considered one of the major breakthrough on CT technology......

 

[theBill]

That is exactly what I said.......

I mean, publishing paper does not equate to the scientific community accept those papers.....

Papers get peer-reviewed for quality then it gets published. The publisher should filter out poor quality papers. Papers are also counted by citation, that should indicate commnity acceptance.

 

[jhungary]

Papers get peer-reviewed for quality then it gets published. The publisher should filter out poor quality papers. Papers are also counted by citation, that should indicate commnity acceptance.

Umm......no..

Paper get peer reviewed AFTER you get published. Only your mentor review your paper before you published.

Unless you are talking about published in professional journal like Lancet or IEEE. Which is not what the article is talking about. I am talking about people who did their degree and have to publish their paper in order to be graduated

 

[theBill]

Umm......no..

Paper get peer reviewed AFTER you get published. Only your mentor review your paper before you published.

Unless you are talking about published in professional journal like Lancet or IEEE. Which is not what the article is talking about. I am talking about people who did their degree and have to publish their paper in order to be graduated

In science, peer review helps provide assurance that published research meets minimum standards for scientific quality. Peer review typically works something like this:

1. A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.
2. The journal’s editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the “peers” of peer review).
3. Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.
4. The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.
5. Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.

 

[jhungary]

In science, peer review helps provide assurance that published research meets minimum standards for scientific quality. Peer review typically works something like this:

1. A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.
2. The journal’s editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the “peers” of peer review).
3. Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.
4. The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.
5. Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.

Dude, I know the publication method, as I said, I myself published 2 papers during my MPhil Research program.

Again, peer don't necessarily agree on any publication, you only have to have a sound idea and conclusion and with verified sources to be published, you don't need people to agree with you to be published, in fact, that is what publication do, they instigate debate to rife thru the paper to have a peer judge your research, that's what publication do, whether or not other scientist agree on your view or your research result is NOT guaranteed, and hence whether or not said published paper have value is also not guaranteed.

I can probably name you 15 or so panned research papers in my field that was being panned widely since published.

Again, you are thinking about Professional Journal like Lancet or New England Medical Journal or IEEE, which you need some degree of acceptance and highly cited to be able to make those rank. But then all those professional journals combine would not publish 1 million papers in 3 years like the article suggested...those journal only accept 5 to 6 % of paper submitted....

 

[sinait]

In science, peer review helps provide assurance that published research meets minimum standards for scientific quality. Peer review typically works something like this:

1. A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.
2. The journal’s editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the “peers” of peer review).
3. Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.
4. The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.
5. Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.

Haha, Google Search Military Professional forgot to Google before posting his ignorant opinion.

Umm......no..

Paper get peer reviewed AFTER you get published. Only your mentor review your paper before you published.

 

[jhungary]

Haha, Google Search Military Professional forgot to Google before posting his ignorant opinion.

You do know his post exactly match what I said

Tell me where in his post said "PEOPLE HAVE TO AGREE ON THE FINDING" to publish?

1. A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.
2. The journal’s editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the “peers” of peer review).
3. Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.
4. The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.
5. Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.

Or you don't think people can write a well sounded paper and leading to a completely wrong conclusion??

Research findings that are probably wrong cited far more than robust ones, study finds

Academics suspect papers with grabby conclusions are waved through more easily by reviewers

www.theguardian.com

The study in Science Advances is the latest to highlight the “replication crisis” where results, mostly in social science and medicine, fail to hold up when other researchers try to repeat experiments. Following an influential paper in 2005 titled Why most published research findings are false, three major projects have found replication rates as low as 39% in psychology journals, 61% in economics journals, and 62% in social science studies published in the Nature and Science, two of the most prestigious journals in the world.

Maybe you should publish something so we can all laugh at before you laugh at others?

 

[dbc]

Well, OP article stated China is leading 37 out of 44 tracked technology, but then the same article and its source did not mention how China is leading on those technology, by what indictor, measurement and so on.

For example, the article said China is the leader of Electric Battery Tech. The problem is, China may have been the biggest Electric Battery producer in the world, which I suspect where this is from. on the other hand, of the known 5 Battery tech Structure Battery, Solid State Battery, Flouride Ion Batter, NMC532 Cell (or the million mile battery) and Sodium Battery, China only lead with Sodium Battery.....

So I have no idea how or what China leading battery tech from...

nope the conclusion of the Australian Strategic Policy Review is purely based on citation count. . The institute neither have the means nor the resources to validate the real value of these patents.

Patent fraud and malpractice is a real problem in China.

China’s National Intellectual Property Administration Sanctions 7 Patent Firms for Filing Over 20,000 Abnormal (Irregular) Patent Applications

On March 14, 2023, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) sanctioned 7 Chinese patent firms for filing over 20,000 abnormal (i.e., junk) patent applications.

www.natlawreview.com

 

[jhungary]

nope the conclusion of the Australian Strategic Policy Review is purely based on citation count. . The institute neither have the means nor the resources to validate the real value of these patents.

Patent fraud and malpractice is a real problem in China.

China’s National Intellectual Property Administration Sanctions 7 Patent Firms for Filing Over 20,000 Abnormal (Irregular) Patent Applications

On March 14, 2023, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) sanctioned 7 Chinese patent firms for filing over 20,000 abnormal (i.e., junk) patent applications.

www.natlawreview.com

Yeah, this looks a lot more political than factual.

Asked around people from my old job from one of the most famous Australian Think Tank, looks like ASPI is some new wannabe headed by not too many academics and not really that much endorsement. He said they don't even have senior government endorsement, so I would take their work with a giant pinch of salt.

 

[beijingwalker]

Not only paper and research, and tangible high tech products, not indicator is stronger than the products and money worth.

 

[jhungary]

Not only paper and research, and tangible high tech products, not indicator is stronger than the products and money worth.

View attachment 926827

That's a wrong parameter, you make high tech products does not means you created those high tech product, you need patent to sale number, people need to pay you money (royalty) to make the stuff patented to you if you are the creator of that technology, you need that number to show you lead the field not just how much you earn by making those technology.

Because in that graph you show, you are literally saying Vietnam and Malaysia are more higher tech than France or Netherlands.........

 

[beijingwalker]

That's a wrong parameter, you make high tech products does not means you created those high tech product, you need patent to sale number, people need to pay you money (royalty) to make the stuff patented to you if you are the creator of that technology, you need that number to show you lead the field not just how much you earn by making those technology.

Because in that graph you show, you are literally saying Vietnam and Malaysia are more higher tech than France or Netherlands.........

It's one important indicator, China is dominant in many indicators , of course not every one of them, high tech is a very comprehensive scope, not just some selected sectors.

 

[jhungary]

It's one important indicator, China is dominant in many indicators , of course not every one of them, high tech is a very comprehensive scope, not just some selective sectors.

So again, by listing that graph, are you saying

Vietnam and Malaysia lead France and Netherland in term of Scientific and Technology development??

Because based on your interpretation of that graph it is.

 

[beijingwalker]

So again, by listing that graph, are you saying

Vietnam and Malaysia lead France and Netherland in term of Scientific and Technology development??

Because based on your interpretation of that graph it is.

It's one important indicator, China is dominant in many indicators , of course not every one of them, high tech is a very comprehensive scope, not just some selected sectors.
I didn't say its the only factor, but one of the most important, all the research and study try to cash their brainchild as the end result.

 

[jhungary]

It's one important indicator, China is dominant in many indicators , of course not every one of them, high tech is a very comprehensive scope, not just some selected sectors.
I didn't say its the only factor, but one of the most important, all the research and study try to cash their brainchild as the end result.

I am not asking you whether it was one important indicator

This is a very simple yes and no question

So again, by listing that graph, are you saying

Vietnam and Malaysia lead France and Netherland in term of Scientific and Technology development??

Again, because the graph said so if it is being interpreted your way.