IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v8y2014i3p606-617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations

Author

Listed:
  • Leydesdorff, Loet
  • Wagner, Caroline S.
  • Bornmann, Lutz

Abstract

The percentages of shares of world publications of the European Union and its member states, China, and the United States have been represented differently as a result of using different databases. An analytical variant of the Web-of-Science (of Thomson Reuters) enables us to study the dynamics in the world publication system in terms of the field-normalized top-1% and top-10% most-frequently cited publications. Comparing the EU28, USA, and China at the global level shows a top-level dynamic that is different from the analysis in terms of shares of publications: the United States remains far more productive in the top-1% of all papers; China drops out of the competition for elite status; and the EU28 increased its share among the top-cited papers from 2000 to 2010. Some of the EU28 member states overtook the United States during this decade; but a clear divide remains between EU15 (Western Europe) and the Accession Countries. Network analysis shows that China was embedded in this top-layer of internationally co-authored publications. These publications often involve more than a single European nation.

Suggested Citation

  • Leydesdorff, Loet & Wagner, Caroline S. & Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "The European Union, China, and the United States in the top-1% and top-10% layers of most-frequently cited publications: Competition and collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 606-617.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:8:y:2014:i:3:p:606-617
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157714000509
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2014.05.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marianne Gauffriau & Peder Olesen Larsen & Isabelle Maye & Anne Roulin-Perriard & Markus Ins, 2007. "Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 73(2), pages 175-214, November.
    2. Schneider, Jesper W., 2013. "Caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessments," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 50-62.
    3. Lutz Bornmann, 2014. "How are excellent (highly cited) papers defined in bibliometrics? A quantitative analysis of the literature," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 166-173.
    4. Th N van Leeuwen & H F Moed & R J W Tijssen & M S Visser & A F J van Raan, 2000. "First evidence of serious language-bias in the use of citation analysis for the evaluation of national science systems," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 155-156, August.
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Mutz, Rüdiger, 2013. "The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 158-165.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff & Caroline Wagner, 2009. "Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 23-36, January.
    7. Michel Zitt & Suzy Ramanana-Rahary & Elise Bassecoulard, 2005. "Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(2), pages 373-401, April.
    8. Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Measuring China"s research performance using the Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(3), pages 281-296, March.
    9. Hoekman, Jarno & Frenken, Koen & Tijssen, Robert J.W., 2010. "Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 662-673, June.
    10. Olle Persson, 2010. "Are highly cited papers more international?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 397-401, May.
    11. Koen Frenken, 2002. "A New Indicator of European Integration and an Application to Collaboration in Scientific Research," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 345-361, December.
    12. Loet Leydesdorff & Han Woo Park & Caroline Wagner, 2014. "International coauthorship relations in the Social Sciences Citation Index: Is internationalization leading the Network?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(10), pages 2111-2126, October.
    13. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Thed N. van Leeuwen, 2002. "Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 381-397, July.
    14. Wagner, Caroline S. & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2005. "Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1608-1618, December.
    15. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2006. "The emergence of China as a leading nation in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 83-104, February.
    16. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    17. Jian Wang, 2013. "Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 851-872, March.
    18. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "Testing differences statistically with the Leiden ranking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 781-783, September.
    19. Rodrigo Costas & Isabel Iribarren-Maestro, 2007. "Variations in content and format of ISI databases in their different versions: The case of the Science Citation Index in CD-ROM and the Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(2), pages 167-183, August.
    20. R. D. Shelton & Loet Leydesdorff, 2012. "Publish or patent: Bibliometric evidence for empirical trade-offs in national funding strategies," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 498-511, March.
    21. Jonathan Adams, 2013. "The fourth age of research," Nature, Nature, vol. 497(7451), pages 557-560, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    3. Loet Leydesdorff & Paul Wouters & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2129-2150, December.
    4. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Jonathan Adams, 2019. "The integrated impact indicator revisited (I3*): a non-parametric alternative to the journal impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1669-1694, June.
    5. Brito, Ricardo & Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso, 2018. "Research assessment by percentile-based double rank analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 315-329.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz, 2013. "The problem of citation impact assessments for recent publication years in institutional evaluations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 722-729.
    7. Laurent R. Bergé, 2017. "Network proximity in the geography of research collaboration," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96(4), pages 785-815, November.
    8. Tamara Krajna & Jelka Petrak, 2019. "Croatian Highly Cited Papers," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 17(3-B), pages 684-696.
    9. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    10. Fu, Junying & Frietsch, Rainer & Tagscherer, Ulrike, 2013. "Publication activity in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database in the context of Chinese science and technology policy from 1977 to 2012," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 35, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    11. Graf, Holger & Kalthaus, Martin, 2018. "International research networks: Determinants of country embeddedness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1198-1214.
    12. Jyoti Dua & Vivek Kumar Singh & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2023. "Measuring and characterizing international collaboration patterns in Indian scientific research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5081-5116, September.
    13. Ping Zhou & Yongfeng Zhong & Meigen Yu, 2013. "A bibliometric investigation on China–UK collaboration in food and agriculture," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 267-285, November.
    14. Juana Paul Moiwo & Fulu Tao, 2013. "The changing dynamics in citation index publication position China in a race with the USA for global leadership," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 1031-1050, June.
    15. Jyoti Dua & Hiran H. Lathabai & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2023. "Measuring and characterizing research collaboration in SAARC countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1265-1294, February.
    16. Bornmann, Lutz & Adams, Jonathan & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2018. "The negative effects of citing with a national orientation in terms of recognition: National and international citations in natural-sciences papers from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 931-949.
    17. Maria Karaulova & Abdullah Gök & Oliver Shackleton & Philip Shapira, 2016. "Science system path-dependencies and their influences: nanotechnology research in Russia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 645-670, May.
    18. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Tekles & Loet Leydesdorff, 2019. "How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1187-1205, May.
    19. Chen, Shiji & Qiu, Junping & Arsenault, Clément & Larivière, Vincent, 2021. "Exploring the interdisciplinarity patterns of highly cited papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    20. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2016. "Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 875-887.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:8:y:2014:i:3:p:606-617. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.