“一带一路”沿线国家科研合作网络的多元结构及形成机制

科技合作是"一带一路"倡议"民心相通"的重要组成部分,2013年以来取得显著进展。以"一带一路"沿线65国为研究区,运用WOS核心集合论文合作数据构建国家间科研合作矩阵,通过GIS空间分析、社会网络分析以及负二项回归分析法,探究沿线各国2013年和2018年科研合作网络的多元化结构及形成机制,结果表明:①在全球尺度,"一带一路"沿线各国与其他国家之间的知识流动日趋频繁,但内部合作紧密程度不及与沿线以外地区的合作程度。沿线区域对全球的科研合作网络由欧洲、美国和中国"三足鼎立"骨架结构向欧洲、美国、中国、加拿大、日本、澳大利亚等多个密集区构成的"多边形"骨架结构转变。②"一带一路"沿线地区的合作网络的空间结构,由中国、中东欧区组成的"双核发散"向"一区多点"构成的"多极化"空间结构转变;等级结构则呈现典型的"中心-外围"等级层次结构,且由单核心向双核心转变;控制结构呈现出由"单核心"向四周高、中间低的"多超多强"盆地型控制结构转变。③沿线国家的科研实力、经济发展水平、对外开放度等国家主体属性以及地理邻近性、社会邻近性等是沿线科研合作网络形成的主要机制,其中科研实力、社会邻近性的作用最大,地理距离对科研合作的阻碍作用逐渐减弱。

The multiple structure and formation mechanisms of the scientific collaboration network in the Belt and Road regions

Scientific collaboration has become an important part of the people-to-people exchanges in the Belt and Road Initiative, and remarkable progress has been made since 2013. Taking the 65 countries in the Belt and Road regions, hereafter called the BRI countries, as the research areas and using the collaborated WOS core collection papers to construct the inter-national scientific collaboration matrix, the paper explores the multiple structure and formation mechanisms of the scientific collaboration network of BRI countries through the GIS spatial analysis, social network analysis and negative binomial regression. The results show that: (1) at the global scale, knowledge flow is becoming more and more frequent, and the degree of internal collaboration within BRI countries is not as close as that of collaboration with other countries in the world. All the sub-regions of BRI regions have the most external collaboration links with Europe outside BRI regions. The global scientific collaboration network based on the BRI countries has changed from a "tripod" framework of Europe, USA, China to the "polygon" framework of Europe, USA, China, Japan, Canada, Australia and other dense regions. (2) The spatial structure of the collaboration network within the BRI countries is transformed from the "dual-core" type (China and Central & Eastern Europe) to the "multipole" type (Central & Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Singapore, India, Saudi Arabia, etc.). The hierarchical structure presents a typical "core-periphery" pattern, the core countries of which change from single core (China) to dual cores (China and India). In terms of control structure, the type has changed from one superpower (China) to multi great powers including China, India, Russia, Poland, Czech, Turkey, Malaysia and Iran, which presents a pattern of "high in the surroundings while low in the middle". (3) The main formation mechanisms of scientific collaboration network of BRI countries depend on scientific research ability, the level of economic development, the level of foreign linkage, and proximities such as geographical proximity, social proximity and language proximity. Among them, scientific research ability and social proximity play the most important role, while geographical distance gradually weakens the hindrance to scientific collaboration.