IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v98y2014i1d10.1007_s11192-013-1087-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to interpret the position of private sector institutions in bibliometric rankings of research institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Félix Moya-Anegón

    (CSIC, CCHS, IPP)

  • Carmen López-Illescas

    (University of Extremadura)

  • Henk F. Moed

    (Informetric Research Group, Elsevier)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the positions of institutions from the private domain in bibliometric rankings of as many as 27,000 research institutions and highlights factors that are crucial for a proper interpretation of such positions. It was found that among the institutions with the largest output in terms of published research articles, private firms are underrepresented, whereas in the top quartile of institutions with the largest citation impact firms are overrepresented. A firm’s publication output is not a good indicator of its R&D investment: big firms in Pharmaceutics are both heavy investors in R&D and frequent publishers of scientific articles, whereas in Automobiles firms tend to invest heavily in R&D but their publication output is low. This is ascribed to the fact that the former need a validation of their results by the scientific community, while the latter do less so. Private institutions generating the largest citation impact tend to collaborate with the best public research institutions. This reflects the crucial importance of publicly funded research for the private sector.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:98:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1087-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1087-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-013-1087-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-013-1087-4?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. Godin, Benoit, 1996. "Research and the practice of publication in industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 587-606, June.
    2. Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 401-424.
    3. Cockburn, Iain M & Henderson, Rebecca M, 1998. "Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 157-182, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Francisco Polidoro & Matt Theeke, 2012. "Getting Competition Down to a Science: The Effects of Technological Competition on Firms' Scientific Publications," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1135-1153, August.
    6. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    7. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 1998. "Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 157-182, June.
    8. 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.
    9. González-Pereira, Borja & Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. & Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2010. "A new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 379-391.
    10. Clara Calero-Medina & Carmen López-Illescas & Martijn S Visser & Henk F Moed, 2008. "Important factors when interpreting bibliometric rankings of world universities: an example from oncology," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 71-81, March.
    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. Swapan Kumar Patra & Mammo Muchie, 2018. "Research and innovation in South African universities: from the triple helix’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 51-76, July.
    2. Fabio Zagonari, 2019. "Scientific Production and Productivity for Characterizing an Author’s Publication History: Simple and Nested Gini’s and Hirsch’s Indexes Combined," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-30, May.
    3. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    4. Maureen McKelvey & Bastian Rake, 2020. "Exploring scientific publications by firms: what are the roles of academic and corporate partners for publications in high reputation or high impact journals?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1323-1360, March.
    5. Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio & Ely Francina Tannuri Oliveira & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Henk F. Moed, 2020. "Does corresponding authorship influence scientific impact in collaboration: Brazilian institutions as a case of study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1349-1369, November.

    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. Markus Simeth & Michele Cincera, 2016. "Corporate Science, Innovation, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1970-1981, July.
    2. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    4. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    5. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2012. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," NBER Working Papers 18292, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2017. "Academic knowledge quality differentials and the quality of firm innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(5), pages 821-844.
    7. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    8. Nelson, Andrew J., 2009. "Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 994-1005, July.
    9. Sauermann, Henry & Roach, Michael, 2014. "Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs’ preferences for publishing in industrial employment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 32-47.
    10. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Lia Sheer, 2017. "Back to Basics: Why do Firms Invest in Research?," NBER Working Papers 23187, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Breschi, Stefano & Catalini, Christian, 2010. "Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 14-26, February.
    12. Maureen McKelvey & Bastian Rake, 2020. "Exploring scientific publications by firms: what are the roles of academic and corporate partners for publications in high reputation or high impact journals?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1323-1360, March.
    13. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2013. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 504-525, October.
    14. Sternitzke, Christian, 2010. "Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 810-821, July.
    15. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    16. Francisco Polidoro & Matt Theeke, 2012. "Getting Competition Down to a Science: The Effects of Technological Competition on Firms' Scientific Publications," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1135-1153, August.
    17. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    18. Pellens, Maikel & Della Malva, Antonio, 2016. "Changing of the guard: Structural change and corporate science in the semiconductor industry," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-050, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2015. "Killing the Golden Goose? The Decline of Science in Corporate R&D," NBER Working Papers 20902, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.

    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:spr:scient:v:98:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1087-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.