The science and technology (S&T) literatures of India and China were analyzed individually,
then compared. Records having at least one author with an India or China address were retrieved from the
Science Citation Index/ Social Science Citation Index databases. Bibliometrics and computational linguistics
analyses were performed on these retrieved records to generate the technical infrastructure (key authors, Centers
of Excellence, etc) and technical structure (pervasive technical thrusts, relationships among thrusts) of the
Chinese and Indian S&T literatures, and to compare these literatures. A variety of analytical techniques were
used to examine the infrastructure and technical structure from multiple perspectives, including factor analysis,
correlation mapping, and document clustering (both traditional and fuzzy). The summary results and conclusions
from these studies were described. The first section of the paper presented an assessment of China’s S&T
literature; the second section presented an assessment of India’s S&T literature; and the third section compared
India’s and China’s research outputs from multiple perspectives.

The paper proposes a combination of qualitative and quantitative criteria to classify the quality,
talent and creative thinking of the scientists of the“hard”, medical and biological sciences. The rationale for
the proposed classification is to focus on the impact and overall achievements of each individual scientist and
on how he is perceived by his own community. This new method is probably more complete than any other form
of traditional judgment of a scientist's achievements and reputation, and may be useful for funding agencies,
editors of scientific journals, science academies, universities, and research laboratories.

Scientific research organizations were selected as analytical level and the Max Planck Society
was chosen as a main object organization in this article. By utilizing scientometric data derivated from SCIE,
ESI and DII, assisted with factual information such as R&D expenditure configuration and distribution of
research fields, the Max Planck Society was analyzed in the following perspectives: distribution and adjustment
of S&T, research output and its international influence for corresponding disciplinary fields, comparative
advantage of disciplines, the cooperation network, cooperation strength and its disciplinary distribution with
13 other scientific research organizations in the world; patent output trends, comparison of domestic and
foreign patents, patent R&D cooperation, distribution of technological strength and foci, etc. In sum, the
disciplinary configuration and output characteristics of the Max Planck Society is thoroughly analyzed to
provide reference for scientific research organizations’S&T distribution studies, as well as for the policymaking
of discipline development.