1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Has China’s Young Thousand Talents program been successful in recruiting and nurturing top-caliber scientists?

      1 , 2 , 3
      Science
      American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this study, we examined China’s Young Thousand Talents (YTT) program and evaluated its effectiveness in recruiting elite expatriate scientists and in nurturing the returnee scientists’ productivity. We find that YTT scientists are generally of high caliber in research but, as a group, fall below the top category in pre-return productivity. We further find that YTT scientists are associated with a post-return publication gain across journal-quality tiers. However, this gain mainly takes place in last-authored publications and for high-caliber (albeit not top-caliber) recruits and can be explained by YTT scientists’ access to greater funding and larger research teams. This paper has policy implications for the mobility of scientific talent, especially as early-career scientists face growing challenges in accessing research funding in the United States and European Union

          Measuring returning scientists’ success

          China is a top sender of students overseas, and the Chinese government launched the Young Thousand Talents program to recruit and nurture high-caliber, early-career expatriate scientists who return to China after they receive doctorates abroad. Shi et al . examined how effective the program has been in supporting the young scholars’ productivity when they return to China compared with their peers that remained overseas. They found that the scholars were high (but not top) caliber and outperformed overseas peers in last-authored publications because of greater access to larger research teams and better research funding in China. —EEU

          Abstract

          High-caliber scientists who return to China from training abroad outperform peers who remain overseas in regard to publications and access to funding.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology

              One of the most universal trends in science and technology today is the growth of large teams in all areas, as solitary researchers and small teams diminish in prevalence1-3. Increases in team size have been attributed to the specialization of scientific activities3, improvements in communication technology4,5, or the complexity of modern problems that require interdisciplinary solutions6-8. This shift in team size raises the question of whether and how the character of the science and technology produced by large teams differs from that of small teams. Here we analyse more than 65 million papers, patents and software products that span the period 1954-2014, and demonstrate that across this period smaller teams have tended to disrupt science and technology with new ideas and opportunities, whereas larger teams have tended to develop existing ones. Work from larger teams builds on more-recent and popular developments, and attention to their work comes immediately. By contrast, contributions by smaller teams search more deeply into the past, are viewed as disruptive to science and technology and succeed further into the future-if at all. Observed differences between small and large teams are magnified for higher-impact work, with small teams known for disruptive work and large teams for developing work. Differences in topic and research design account for a small part of the relationship between team size and disruption; most of the effect occurs at the level of the individual, as people move between smaller and larger teams. These results demonstrate that both small and large teams are essential to a flourishing ecology of science and technology, and suggest that, to achieve this, science policies should aim to support a diversity of team sizes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Science
                Science
                American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
                0036-8075
                1095-9203
                January 06 2023
                January 06 2023
                : 379
                : 6627
                : 62-65
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
                [2 ]School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
                [3 ]Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
                Article
                10.1126/science.abq1218
                36603081
                d1d1cbc6-3f5f-4722-aca7-1a0be3f5a1de
                © 2023
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article