Search

Global science is set to experience different times in the 2020s. China surpasses the USA in terms of the number of scientific papers in 2020 in most scientific databases. This scenario is expected to have implications not only in East Asia but also beyond the region. Against this backdrop, this paper investigates the scientific influence of the US-China competition on six major Muslim-majority science systems. Multiple data sources are used to collect data for the bibliometric analyses, which include the trend analysis of collaboration patterns, discipline-based collaborations, authorship patterns for responsibility in collaborations, and citation premium of collaborations with the USA versus China. All the analyses consistently demonstrate that the USA is losing its scientific influence on the selected Muslim-majority science systems to China. Analysis results indicate an astonishing increase in collaborations with China-based scientists in the last decade. Half of the selected Muslim-majority science systems collaborate more with China-based scientists, whereas the other half collaborate more with the USA in 2021, indicating a fifty-fifty split. The collaborations with China-based authors garner higher citation premiums for the selected Muslim-majority science systems than the collaborations with the USA.

The terminology of "Chinese characteristics" (zhongguo tese) is ubiquitous in China's political language, but its precise definition remains elusive. This study focuses specifically on the mobilising of the idea of Chinese characteristics of China's science evaluation programme: the China Discipline Evaluation (CDE). Implemented as an instrument of the higher education reform since 1978, it still plays a vital role in China today. This paper is structured into three parts. It begins by laying out the broad landscape of the science evaluation systems across several countries including China, to distil the distinctiveness of the CDE. Then, it moves to focus on the CDE and locates it in its historical and social-political context. Finally, it investigates the origin and use of Chinese characteristics, suggesting that this terminology functions as a rhetoric modality which describes, labels, and legitimates seemingly self-contradictory phenomena exclusive to China. It also emphasises the idea of Chinese exceptionalism that is touted as irreducible to other cultural forms. Based on these considerations, it proposes three dimensions of the Chinese characteristics of the CDE: (i) the paradoxical status of the evaluation agency, (ii) the co-existence of contradictory values embedded in the objectives and criteria of the evaluation, and (iii) the promotion of the visibility of the idea of China at the international stage. Overall, it shows that while the CDE may appear to be a decentralisation instrument, it is in essence a "hegemonic project" and "hegemonic apparatus" to fulfil the party-state's ambition in securing domestic stability and pursuing international competitiveness.

Significant collaborations with research partners in China are seen in many Western countries. With increasing US-China geopolitical tensions, governments, research institutions, and individuals in established scientific systems are increasingly required to address a proliferating array of risks and challenges associated with collaboration with China. Academic researchers are only beginning to describe how countries are responding to the ongoing need for global scientific collaboration amidst intensifying geopolitical competition. Several studies have examined the securitization of scientific connections with China in the USA, while others have documented developments in nations such as Australia, the UK, and Sweden. However, there is limited comparative research on approaches to international science amid geopolitical tensions. This paper bridges the gap, illuminating the key dimensions of variation in country-level responses by comparing the cases of Sweden and Australia. The questions we ask are as follows: Who responds to the challenges? By what means? And to what ends are responses directed? Swedish government have been largely passive, but Swedish funding agencies have developed "responsible internationalisation" guidelines that aim to induce proactive reflection by institutions and individual researchers. Australia's approach, by contrast, has centred on legislation, the exercise of ministerial powers, along with sector-wide enactment of expanded due diligence protocols. The comparison highlights key differences in the actors, methods and goals of responses to the intensifying geopolitics of scientific collaboration.