Highlights

• Bibliometric analysis of 76,000 papers (1975-2024) reveals China controls 24% of global REE publications and leads in processing, materials science, and separation chemistry—the true supply chain bottleneck.
• Research has shifted from traditional mining to unconventional sources like coal ash, e-waste, and ion-adsorption clays, with focus on bioleaching and recycling methods.
• China's monopoly persists because it built integrated ecosystems linking academia to industry across the full value chain, while Western nations remain fragmented despite strong materials research.

---

A sweeping new review published in Processes (January 2026) by Medet Junussov of Nazarbayev University, together with collaborators from Satbayev University, Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Industry, and China University of Mining and Technology, analyzes more than 76,000 scientific papers published between 1975 and 2024 to map how rare earth element (REE) research has evolved—and why China’s dominance in processing remains so hard to dislodge.

Using advanced bibliometric tools, the authors show that while global research on rare earths has exploded and diversified, China has quietly built unmatched leadership at the intersection of geology, materials science, and industrial processing—the true choke point in global supply chains.

What the Study Did

This was not a lab experiment or a mining survey. Instead, the authors conducted the largest bibliometric analysis ever assembled for rare earth research, mining the Web of Science database to track:

• Who publishes rare earth research
• Which countries and institutions lead
• How disciplines connect (geology, chemistry, materials science, environmental science)
• How research priorities shifted after key geopolitical shocks

Two analytical tools anchor the study:

• Cross-Disciplinary Publication Index (CDPI): measures how tightly different scientific fields are linked.
• Technology–Economic Linkage Model (TELM): connects academic research to patents, industrial activity, and economic impact.

Think of it as a “satellite map” of global rare earth knowledge—showing where ideas originate, where they cluster, and where they turn into industrial power.

Key Findings: Why Processing, Not Mining, Is the Real Bottleneck

The study identifies three major phases in rare earth research growth:

1. 1975–1990: Low-volume, geology-driven research focused on traditional deposits.
2. 1991–2007: Steady growth as China rises as a producer and electronics demand expands.
3. Post-2008: Explosive growth—triggered by China’s export restrictions and the clean energy transition.

China now accounts for 24.1% of all global REE publications, more than double the United States. But volume alone is not the key insight. China’s advantage lies in integration: it dominates not only mining-related geology, but also materials science, metallurgy, separation chemistry, and environmental processing—the full value chain.

The analysis shows materials science has become the central hub of REE research (CDPI = 0.81), tightly linked to nanotechnology, metallurgy, and applied chemistry. These are precisely the disciplines required for separation, refining, and magnet-grade materials—areas where China already controls 70–90% of global capacity.

The Shift Toward “Green” and Unconventional Sources

Another major finding is a decisive pivot away from classical high-grade deposits toward unconventional and secondary sources, including:

• Ion-adsorption clays
• Coal ash and coal-hosted REE (≈50 million tonnes globally)
• Bauxite residue (“red mud”)
• Phosphorites
• Electronic waste and urban mining

Research increasingly emphasizes bioleaching, membrane separation, ionic liquids, and recycling, reflecting environmental pressure and declining ore quality worldwide. This trend aligns with policy goals—but the study makes clear that scaling these methods remains difficult.

Implications: Why China’s Monopoly Persists

For policymakers and investors, the message is stark: diversifying supply is not a mining problem—it is a processing and knowledge problem. While many countries possess rare earth resources, very few have built the interdisciplinary ecosystem needed to turn ores or wastes into high-purity oxides, metals, and magnets at scale.

China’s dominance is reinforced by:

• Massive, coordinated public research funding
• Tight coupling between academia, state labs, and industry
• Early investment in separation and downstream manufacturing
• Control over processing know-how rather than just raw materials

The United States, Europe, and allies remain strong in advanced materials research—but fragmented, slower to commercialize, and less integrated across the full chain.

Limitations and Controversial Undercurrents

The authors acknowledge key limitations. Bibliometric studies measure research activity, not production capacity. Publication volume does not automatically translate into industrial success. In addition, the analysis relies on English-language databases, which can underrepresent regional research ecosystems.

More controversially, the study highlights an uncomfortable truth: even as the West talks about diversification, global REE research and funding are increasingly concentrated in China. Technology transfer, intellectual property barriers, and export controls are not fully addressed—but they loom large in the background.

Conclusion

This study reads as a quiet warning. Over fifty years, rare earth research has evolved from niche geology into a deeply interdisciplinary, strategically vital field. China did not win by mining more—it won by mastering processing, materials, and integration. Until other countries match that depth, diversification efforts will remain partial and fragile.

For Rare Earth Exchanges™ readers, the takeaway is clear: the next battleground in rare earths is not the mine—it is the lab, the pilot plant, and the separation line.

Citation: Junussov, M. et al. (2026). Process Evolution and Green Innovation in Rare Earth Element Research: A 50-Year Bibliometric Assessment (1975–2024). Processes, 14, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr14010041 (opens in a new tab)

©!-- /wp:paragraph -->