IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/adr/anecst/y2005i79-80p61-90.html

Standing on Academic Shoulders: Measuring Scientific Influence in Universities

Author

Listed:
  • James D. Adams
  • J. Roger Clemmons
  • Paula E. Stephan

Abstract

This article measures scientific influence using citations to academic papers. The data source is the Institute for Scientific Information; institutions include top U.S. research universities. The fields represented span science; and the time period is 1981-1999. The database includes 2.4 million papers and 18.8 million citations that account for much of the basic research conducted in the United States in the late 20th century. We use the citation probability, or actual citations divided by potential citations, to capture utilization of the literature by individual articles. Within fields the mean citation probability is roughly 10^-5. Cross-field probabilities are less than a one-tenth as large and are significant in less than a fourth of the possible cases. Field restricts citation, and this fact suggests limits on scientific influence. Cross-field probabilities are symmetric for mutually citing fields. However, ranked by quality of institution, citation probabilities are asymmetric within fields. Citation probabilities from lower to higher ranked institutions exceed the reverse citations, though the latter are significant. Higher ranked institutions are more often cited by peers than lower ranked institutions. This suggests that knowledge flows from peers increase with rank of institution. Overall the results suggest that spillovers in basic science are important but bounded, limiting the knowledge that spills over between one scientist and another.

Suggested Citation

  • James D. Adams & J. Roger Clemmons & Paula E. Stephan, 2005. "Standing on Academic Shoulders: Measuring Scientific Influence in Universities," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 79-80, pages 61-90.
    • Handle: RePEc:adr:anecst:y:2005:i:79-80:p:61-90
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20777570
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dean Hendrix, 2009. "Institutional self-citation rates: A three year study of universities in the United States," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 321-331, November.
    2. Hans Lööf & Anders Broström, 2008. "Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 73-90, February.
    3. David Popp, 2012. "The Role of Technological Change in Green Growth," NBER Working Papers 18506, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. David Popp, 2015. "Using Scientific Publications to Evaluate Government R&D Spending: The Case of Energy," CESifo Working Paper Series 5442, CESifo.
    5. David Popp, 2015. "Using Scientific Publications to Evaluate Government R&D Spending: The Case of Energy," NBER Working Papers 21415, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Popp, David, 2012. "The role of technological change in green growth," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6239, The World Bank.
    7. James Adams & J. Roger Clemmons, 2008. "Science And Industry: Tracing The Flow Of Basic Research Through Manufacturing And Trade," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 473-495.
    8. Andrei Dubovik & Clemens Fiedler & Alexei Parakhonyak, 2022. "Temporal Patterns in Economics Research," CPB Discussion Paper 440, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    9. Daniel Teodorescu & Tudorel Andrei, 2014. "An examination of “citation circles” for social sciences journals in Eastern European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 209-231, May.
    10. Shengbo Liu & Xiaoting Luo & Miaomiao Liu, 2023. "Was Chinese “Double-First Class” Construction Policy Influential? Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-13, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L30 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - General
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:adr:anecst:y:2005:i:79-80:p:61-90. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Secretariat General or Laurent Linnemer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ensaefr.html .

    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.