Abstract
How do different countries tackle nanoscience research? Are all countries similar except for a trivial size effect, as science is often assumed to be universal? Or does size dictate large differences, as large countries are able to develop activities in all directions of research, while small countries have to specialize in some specific niches? Alternatively, is size irrelevant, as all countries have followed different historical paths, leading to different patterns of specialisation? Here, we develop an original method that uses a bottom-up definition of scientific subfields to map the international structure of any scientific field. Our analysis shows that nanoscience research does not show a universal pattern of specialisation, homothetic of that of a single global leader (e.g., the United States). Instead, we find a multipolar world, with four main ways of doing nanosciences.