A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) shows that the number of Chinese scientists taking on leadership roles in international scientific projects is growing rapidly. Currently, Chinese scientists lead more than half of all projects in collaboration with the UK. It is expected that in the coming years, Chinese scientists will lead the same number of research projects in collaboration with Europe and the United States.
To understand the changing trends in scientific leadership, researchers analyzed author information from nearly 6 million scientific papers. They first analyzed the "author contribution" statements, which describe the role of each author. James Evans of the University of Chicago, the corresponding author of the paper, pointed out that when "author contribution" statements were missing, the team used a model to predict leadership roles. This prediction was based on factors including author experience, citation history, and other assistance researchers received from the authors' past work.
The study categorized researchers who conceived, designed, and directed or provided guidance for projects as "leaders," and first-year students, those providing technical support, and those conducting experiments under guidance as "participants."
Building on this, Evans and colleagues designed two parameters to assess changes in scientific leadership in bilateral collaborations: “leadership share” refers to the number of people from a particular country holding leadership positions in collaborative projects; and “leadership premium” refers to the ratio of leaders to participants in papers.
The study found that in Sino-US collaborative projects, China's "leadership share" rose from 30% in 2010 to 45% in 2023. However, Evans pointed out that the growth rate of China's "leadership premium" is relatively slow, and in many Sino-US collaborative projects, Chinese scientists still play the role of "participants"; while in collaborations with British and European teams, Chinese scientists are more likely to lead research projects.
Research shows that in 2019, China's leadership share was equal to that of the UK; it is projected that by 2027, China's leadership share will reach parity with Europe; and by 2027-2028, China's leadership share will also tend to balance with that of the US. However, China's leadership remains relatively lagging in key technology areas such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and energy, and is not expected to catch up with the US until 2030.
Evans stated that these findings overturn the assumption that the United States could exclude China from global science by refusing to collaborate with Chinese scientists. Simulations show that "the United States would pay a high price if it stopped cooperating with China in key technology areas such as space, artificial intelligence, or quantum computing." Sino-US cooperation, especially in fields like artificial intelligence, is more likely to succeed than conducting research alone.
Marina Zhang of the University of Technology Sydney in Australia points out that the research model relies on journals' "author contribution" statements to define leadership, but such statements can be influenced by cultural differences or disciplinary conventions. For example, some cultures or disciplines place greater emphasis on collective contribution. She adds that the research data only focuses on bilateral collaborations and does not analyze leadership dynamics in multilateral teams.
In response, Evans stated that the model does not solely rely on "author contribution" statements to determine leadership. He said the research team also analyzed multilateral teams, although the relevant findings have not yet been published, but the conclusions are similar.
The author also points out that China has established a leadership position in cooperation with regions where the integration of the global research system is relatively low.
Related paper information: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414893122