China–US scientific collaboration on sustainable development amidst geopolitical tensions

The paper examines how intensifying geopolitical competition—particularly shifts in US–China relations under the Trump and Biden administrations—may influence international scientific collaboration in sustainable development. Framed by the tension between scientific nationalism (research driven by national interests, security, and competitiveness) and scientific globalism (open, cross-border knowledge exchange), the study explores whether bilateral China–US collaboration diminished or evolved under geopolitical stress. The authors hypothesize that (1) enabling scientific collaboration and knowledge sharing is critical for advancing the SDGs and (2) geopolitical tensions may affect the quantity and thematic focus of China–US collaborative research in sustainable development. To address this, the study sets three research questions: Q1: What is the global landscape of scientific research on sustainable development? Q2: What are the frameworks for international collaboration in sustainable development in China and the United States, and what do these reveal about transnational academic dynamics under geopolitical complexity? Q3: Is China–US collaboration characterized by variability due to international relations, particularly in publication quantity and thematic shifts? The study argues this is important because both countries are major scientific powers and central to addressing global challenges (climate change, energy, health), making their collaboration pivotal for SDG progress.

The paper situates China–US scientific collaboration within theories of scientific nationalism and scientific globalism. Scientific nationalism emphasizes national interests (economic competitiveness, technology leadership, security) and may restrict foreign collaborations and technology flow, a dynamic that intensified under the Trump administration through visa restrictions, export controls, and scrutiny of Chinese entities (e.g., Huawei). The Biden administration retained many constraints while adopting multilateral climate and health engagement and boosting domestic R&D in strategic areas. In response, China expanded self-reliance and diversified collaborations via initiatives such as BRI and AIIB. Scientific globalism promotes open collaboration and knowledge sharing, evidenced by long-standing bilateral efforts in energy, environment, climate, and public health. Prior work documents strong China–US co-authorship patterns in fields like nanotechnology and COVID-19-related research, with collaborations resilient but sensitive to policy and geopolitical shocks. This backdrop motivates examining sustainable development collaborations across administrations to detect structural and thematic changes.

Design: A bibliometric analysis using the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) was conducted to compare three geopolitical periods: (a) pre‑Trump: 01/20/2007–01/19/2017; (b) Trump: 01/20/2017–01/19/2021; (c) Biden (early): 01/20/2021–01/19/2023. Retrieval date: 05/15/2023. Search strategy: Advanced search with ((TS = ("sustainable development")) OR TS = ("sustainability")), using quotation marks to ensure exact phrases. Field set to TS (title, abstract, author keywords, Keywords Plus). Inclusion: document types “article” and “review article”; language: English. Exclusions: conference papers, editorials, letters. Data exported as plain text with full records and cited references. Datasets and size (Fig. 1A): 2007–2017 (n ≈ 66,005), 2017–2021 (n ≈ 93,981), 2021–2023 (n ≈ 82,753), after de-duplication and filtering. Indicators and processing: Research productivity measured by publication counts. International collaboration intensity measured by the number of internationally co-authored publications and the international collaboration rate (internationally co-authored publications / total publications). Domestic-only publications were computed by excluding all internationally co-authored items from country totals; international co-publications derived by difference. For China–US bilateral ties, total and average annual co-publications were computed per period. Tools and analyses: VOSviewer was used to map international collaboration networks (country-level, showing links for countries with at least 10 co-publications in the focal period), visualize link strengths, and identify main partners. CiteSpace was used for keyword clustering to identify thematic foci and their evolution across periods; cluster quality assessed by Modularity Q and weighted mean Silhouette S. The study also summarized top-10 countries by total and average annual publications, and top co-publishing country pairs per period. Caveats: The periods 2019–2022 overlap with COVID-19, which may confound collaboration patterns due to travel restrictions and shifting research priorities; results should be interpreted with this context in mind.

Global output and leading countries: Sustainable development research expanded globally (2007–2023), with the US, China, and the UK as leading contributors. Average annual outputs (Table 1) show: 2007–2017: USA ~1,600/year (rank 1); 2017–2021: USA ~4,209/year (1), China ~4,038/year (2); 2021–2023: China ~10,127/year (1) surpassing USA ~5,514/year (2); UK also high and stable. Top bilateral collaborations: Across all three periods, China–US is the most prolific collaboration pair (Table 2): 2007–2017: 995 papers; 2017–2021: 2,146; 2021–2023: 1,591—consistently the largest bilateral link, indicating resilient, growing collaboration despite tensions. International collaboration rates (Table 3–4): USA—international collaboration rate increased steadily: 38.14% (2007–2017) → 51.69% (2017–2021) → 56.25% (2021–2023). China—rate modestly declined as total output surged: 41.83% → 41.47% → 35.48%. Average annual internationally co-authored papers rose markedly for both: USA 610.3 → 2,175.5 → 3,101.5; China 253.4 → 1,674.3 → 3,593. Bilateral China–US collaboration volume (Table 7): Average annual co-publications increased strongly: ~99.5/year (2007–2017) → 537/year (2017–2021) → 796/year (2021–2023), indicating intensifying collaboration overall. Collaboration networks (Biden period): China collaborated with 151 countries; 86 links with partners having ≥10 joint publications; total link strength 12,031; strongest partners: USA, Australia, England, Pakistan. USA collaborated with 187 countries; 103 links (≥10 joint publications); total link strength 12,637; strongest partners: China (largest; 1.70× England), England, Canada, Australia, Germany. The US maintained extensive global connectivity (180, 195, 187 countries across the three periods). Evolution of collaborative themes (CiteSpace clusters; all Q > 0.3 and S > 0.7; Table 8): • 2007–2017: #0 land use; #1 environmental impact; #2 green supply chain management; #3 social‑ecological systems; #4 soil quality; #5 financial performance; #6 urbanization; #7 sustainable development. • 2017–2021: #0 sustainability; #1 food security; #2 sustainable waste management; #3 soil organic carbon; #4 internet of things; #5 urban expansion; #6 collaborative mechanism; #7 remote sensing. • 2021–2023: #0 remote sensing; #1 corporate social responsibility; #2 renewable energy; #3 greenhouse gas emissions; #4 sustainable development goals; #5 water; #6 water scarcity; #7 climate change. Persistent foci across time include land resource management, urbanization, green supply chain management, and remote sensing. Recent emphasis (Biden period) shifted toward renewable energy, water security, and climate change, aligning with re-engagement in global climate policy. Despite a decreasing proportion of US authors in China’s growing publication base, the absolute China–US collaboration volume rose and remained the largest for both countries.

The findings show that geopolitical tensions did not diminish the intensity of China–US collaboration in sustainable development; rather, collaboration volumes and the US collaboration rate increased. China’s explosive growth in total output slightly lowered the share of its internationally co-authored work while its absolute international collaborations, including with the US, rose. Network analyses reveal sustained centrality of the China–US link within broader global collaboration webs. Thematic evolution mirrors policy and global agendas: under Trump, collaborative topics emphasized food security, sustainable waste management, IoT, and soil organic carbon; under Biden, focus shifted to renewable energy, water resources, SDGs, GHG emissions, and climate change—consistent with US re-entry into the Paris Agreement and strengthened climate policy. The US expanded multilateral ties, while China broadened collaborations (notably with BRI-related countries), indicating differentiated but complementary global engagement strategies. These patterns suggest that, for global public goods like sustainability, scientific globalism can remain robust despite national-level geopolitical frictions, supporting knowledge production essential for SDG progress.

This bibliometric study of WOSCC data across three periods (pre‑Trump, Trump, early Biden) shows: (1) Widespread global engagement in sustainable development research, with the US historically leading annual output until 2021, after which China surpassed the US with much higher average annual publications. (2) China and the US are each other’s largest partners; the US maintained extensive ties with many countries, while China strengthened partnerships especially with the US, Australia, England, and Pakistan. (3) Bilateral China–US collaboration intensified over time (annual co-publications ~100 → 537 → 796), while the US international collaboration rate rose steadily; China’s rate modestly declined amid rapid domestic growth. (4) Collaborative research themes shifted across administrations: pre‑Trump (environmental impacts, financial performance, SES), Trump (food security, sustainable waste, IoT), Biden (renewable energy, water, climate), with persistent foci on land management, urbanization, green supply chains, and remote sensing. Overall, despite geopolitical headwinds, China–US collaboration in sustainability remained strong and increasingly productive. Future work should expand data sources beyond WOS, include more output types and languages, control for pandemic effects, and extend comparative analyses to other country dyads to better understand how geopolitics shapes global scientific collaboration in sustainability.

• Data source limited to Web of Science Core Collection; other databases (e.g., Scopus, Google Scholar) were not included, potentially omitting relevant publications. • Only English-language journal articles and review articles were analyzed; excluding other document types and languages may bias collaboration and output estimates. • The analysis focuses on China–US collaboration; results may not generalize to other country pairs without further study. • The 2019–2022 COVID-19 period overlaps with two analyzed phases; the study did not isolate pandemic effects, which may confound observed collaboration patterns. • Publication counts (and derived rates) depend on database updates at the retrieval time (May 15, 2023), so results may vary with subsequent database changes.