IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v9y2021i2p18-d543520.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Trend of Scientific Productivity of Chinese, European Union, and United States Universities and Private Companies: Does the Future Belong to E-Technology Companies?

Author

Listed:
  • Mauro G. Carta

    (Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health University of Cagliari, 09042 Monserrato, Italy)

  • Matthias C. Angermeyer

    (Center for Public Mental Health, 3482 Gosing am Wagram, Austria)

  • Silvano Tagliagambe

    (Department of Architecture, Design and Urban Planning, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy
    Professor Emeritus.)

Abstract

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, and 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as a sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Mauro G. Carta & Matthias C. Angermeyer & Silvano Tagliagambe, 2021. "The Trend of Scientific Productivity of Chinese, European Union, and United States Universities and Private Companies: Does the Future Belong to E-Technology Companies?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:9:y:2021:i:2:p:18-:d:543520
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/9/2/18/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/9/2/18/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    2. Sandra Miguel & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodriguez & Félix de Moya-Anegón, 2011. "Open access and Scopus: A new approach to scientific visibility from the standpoint of access," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(6), pages 1130-1145, June.
    3. Carmen López-Illescas & Félix Moya-Anegón & Henk F. Moed, 2011. "A ranking of universities should account for differences in their disciplinary specialization," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 563-574, August.
    4. Isidro F. Aguillo & Judit Bar-Ilan & Mark Levene & José Luis Ortega, 2010. "Comparing university rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 243-256, October.
    5. Moed, Henk F. & de Moya-Anegón, Félix & López-Illescas, Carmen & Visser, Martijn, 2011. "Is concentration of university research associated with better research performance?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 649-658.
    6. Félix Moya-Anegón & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada & Elena Corera-Álvarez & Francisco José Muñoz-Fernández & Antonio González-Molina & Victor Herrero-Solana, 2007. "Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 73(1), pages 53-78, October.
    7. Felix Poege & Dietmar Harhoff & Fabian Gaessler & Stefano Baruffaldi, 2019. "Science Quality and the Value of Inventions," Papers 1903.05020, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2019.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew Kirby, 2023. "Exploratory Bibliometrics: Using VOSviewer as a Preliminary Research Tool," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Fernando Almeida & José Morais & José Duarte Santos, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Outcomes of European Projects on the Digital Transformation of SMEs," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, September.

    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. Teja Koler-Povh & Primož Južnič & Goran Turk, 2014. "Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1033-1045, February.
    2. Guo Chen & Lu Xiao & Chang-ping Hu & Xue-qin Zhao, 2015. "Identifying the research focus of Library and Information Science institutions in China with institution-specific keywords," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 707-724, May.
    3. Sandra Miguel & Ely Francina Tannuri de Oliveira & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2016. "Scientific Production on Open Access: A Worldwide Bibliometric Analysis in the Academic and Scientific Context," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Wernsdorf, Kathrin & Nagler, Markus & Watzinger, Martin, 2022. "ICT, collaboration, and innovation: Evidence from BITNET," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    5. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Simar, Léopold, 2015. "Efficiency and economies of scale and specialization in European universities: A directional distance approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 430-448.
    6. Andrea Mervar & Maja Jokić, 2022. "Core-periphery nexus in the EU social sciences: bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5793-5817, October.
    7. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Grisel Zacca-González & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2016. "Benchmarking scientific performance by decomposing leadership of Cuban and Latin American institutions in Public Health," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1239-1264, March.
    8. Hernández-Escobedo, Quetzalcoatl & Perea-Moreno, Alberto-Jesús & Manzano-Agugliaro, Francisco, 2018. "Wind energy research in Mexico," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 719-729.
    9. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia & Daniel Torres-Salinas & Francisco Herrera, 2012. "Ranking of research output of universities on the basis of the multidimensional prestige of influential fields: Spanish universities as a case of study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 1081-1099, December.
    10. Elio Atenógenes Villaseñor & Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Humberto Carrillo-Calvet, 2017. "Multiparametric characterization of scientometric performance profiles assisted by neural networks: a study of Mexican higher education institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 77-104, January.
    11. Ludo Waltman & Clara Calero-Medina & Joost Kosten & Ed C.M. Noyons & Robert J.W. Tijssen & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F.J. Raan & Martijn S. Visser & Paul Wouters, 2012. "The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2419-2432, December.
    12. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2018. "Scientific potential of European fully open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1373-1394, March.
    13. Nicolás Robinson-García & Daniel Torres-Salinas & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar & Francisco Herrera, 2014. "An insight into the importance of national university rankings in an international context: the case of the I-UGR rankings of Spanish universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1309-1324, November.
    14. Félix Moya-Anegón & Carmen López-Illescas & Henk F. Moed, 2014. "How to interpret the position of private sector institutions in bibliometric rankings of research institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 283-298, January.
    15. Kathrin Wernsdorf & Markus Nagler & Martin Watzinger, 2020. "ICT, Collaboration, and Science-Based Innovation: Evidence from BITNET," CESifo Working Paper Series 8646, CESifo.
    16. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Luca Secondi, 2017. "The determinants of research performance in European universities: a large scale multilevel analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1147-1178, September.
    17. Luz M. Romo-Fernández & Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2013. "Co-word based thematic analysis of renewable energy (1990–2010)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 743-765, December.
    18. Ufuk Akcigit & Murat Celik & Daron Acemoglu, 2014. "Young, Restless and Creative: Openness to Disruption and Creative Innovations," 2014 Meeting Papers 377, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    19. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    20. Laura Barbieri & Daniela Bragoli & Flavia Cortelezzi & Giovanni Marseguerra, 2015. "Public Support to Innovation Strategies," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali dises1509, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).

    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:gam:jpubli:v:9:y:2021:i:2:p:18-:d:543520. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.