中国科学技术体制现在正处于非常重要的转型期。在过去的十多年里,不仅高校进行了合并和重组,一些公共研究机构也进行了全面调整以应对国家未来发展的需求。不仅如此,国家政策和全球化的趋势还要求中国科学研究体系融入到全球科研体系中。通过对1998~2004年的国际科学刊物中有中国参与发表的合作论文数据进行分析,探索哪些科研机构在直接或间接吸收国外相关研究组织研究成果中发挥重要作用。结果表明,中国科研机构不同科研组织与国外高校间的知识联系存在着相当稳定的等级序列,精英高校的影响力远远大于公共研究机构,而且随着时间的推移,精英高校在本地和全球科研机构间起着越来越重要的中介作用。虽然北京处于中国知识网络中的核心地位,但这种空间上的核心边缘差异表现出逐步缩小的趋势。精英高校的主动融合效应和全球知识系统的涓滴效应共同推进了中国学术知识网络的演化。

The Chinese science and technology system is currently going through a period of considerable transition. Within a period of just 10 years, not only was the university system consolidated and upgraded, but the public research organizations also found themselves completely restructured in order to meet the future requirements of their country, namely the production of new knowledge. The tendency of globalization also requires the integration of the Chinese academic system into the global research system. This article aims to answer the question as to which group of universities and research organizations is most relevant for the absorbing of knowledge directly and indirectly from foreign research-related organizations. For this purpose, the international scientific publications from 1998 to 2004 with Chinese involvement were analyzed. A network constructed from the co-publication data functions as an aid to understanding the paths of knowledge exchanged between foreign and Chinese players in the scientific field. The analysis presented in this article has shown that Chinese academic knowledge network becomes larger and denser over time, showing properties of scale-free network topologies. The probability of having a 211-university in a path between any two nodes in the network doubled from 1998 to 2004. Chinese elite universities have a strong and increasingly dominant position connecting China to the global knowledge system than public research organizations. The decreasing influence of public research organizations in the knowledge network can be seen as a remarkable shift from the pre-reform period in the university and science sector. All universities apart from the 211-project universities are comparatively detached from the knowledge creation process, and this marginal position is becoming more pronounced. Furthermore, although Beijing is still as the core of the knowledge network in China, but the disparity of core-periphery shows a narrowing trend. The evolution of China's academic knowledge network should be due to the active integration effects of the elite universities and the trickle-down effect of global knowledge systems. Clearly, the integration of the Chinese system into the global scene is following a unique path, but there is still a lot to learn for other large developing economies such as India, Brazil, and Russia. Top-down political programs that foster the introduction of elements of competition produce strong guidelines for the concentration on key development sectors, suggesting the pooling of resources into these selected sectors, while comprehensive innovative talent initiatives can be used to propel these economies into a relevant position in the global science arena.