IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v45y2018i1p14-23..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

European Paradox or Delusion—Are European Science and Economy Outdated?

Author

Listed:
  • Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro
  • Francis Narin

Abstract

The European Union (EU) seems to presume that the mass production of European research papers indicates that Europe is a leading scientific power, and the so-called European paradox of strong science but weak technology is due to inefficiencies in the utilization of this top level European science by European industry. We fundamentally disagree, and will show that Europe lags far behind the USA in the production of important, highly cited research. We will show that there is a consistent weakening of European science as one ascends the citation scale, with the EU almost twice as effective in the production of minimal impact papers, while the USA is at least twice as effective in the production of very highly cited scientific papers, and garnering Nobel prizes. Only in the highly multinational, collaborative fields of Physics and Clinical Medicine does the EU seem to approach the USA in top scale impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro & Francis Narin, 2018. "European Paradox or Delusion—Are European Science and Economy Outdated?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 14-23.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:1:p:14-23.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scx021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Li Tang & Philip Shapira & Jan Youtie, 2015. "Is there a clubbing effect underlying Chinese research citation Increases?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1923-1932, September.
    2. Neus Herranz & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2013. "The end of the “European Paradox”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 453-464, April.
    3. Robert D. Shelton, 2008. "Relations between national research investment and publication output: Application to an American Paradox," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 191-205, February.
    4. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    5. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    6. Kosmulski, Marek, 2013. "Family-tree of bibliometric indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 313-317.
    7. 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.
    8. Andrea Bonaccorsi, 2007. "Explaining poor performance of European science: Institutions versus policies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(5), pages 303-316, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Beñat Bilbao‐Osorio & Andrés Rodríguez‐Pose, 2004. "From R&D to Innovation and Economic Growth in the EU," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 434-455, September.
    11. Martin, Ben R. & Irvine, John, 1993. "Assessing basic research : Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 106-106, April.
    12. Peter Andras, 2011. "Research: metrics, quality, and management implications," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 90-106, June.
    13. Olle Persson, 2010. "Are highly cited papers more international?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 397-401, May.
    14. Butler, Linda, 2003. "Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications--the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 143-155, January.
    15. Ponomarev, Ilya V. & Williams, Duane E. & Hackett, Charles J. & Schnell, Joshua D. & Haak, Laurel L., 2014. "Predicting highly cited papers: A Method for Early Detection of Candidate Breakthroughs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 49-55.
    16. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    17. Olle Persson & Wolfgang Glänzel & Rickard Danell, 2004. "Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 421-432, August.
    18. 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.
    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. Lutz Bornmann & Caroline Wagner & Loet Leydesdorff, 2018. "The geography of references in elite articles: Which countries contribute to the archives of knowledge?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro & Ricardo Brito, 2019. "Probability and expected frequency of breakthroughs: basis and use of a robust method of research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 213-235, April.
    3. Raquel Carrasco & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2019. "Spatial mobility in elite academic institutions in economics: the case of Spain," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 141-172, June.
    4. Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso & Brito, Ricardo, 2018. "Technological research in the EU is less efficient than the world average. EU research policy risks Europeans’ future," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 718-731.
    5. 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.

    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. Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso & Brito, Ricardo, 2018. "Technological research in the EU is less efficient than the world average. EU research policy risks Europeans’ future," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 718-731.
    2. Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso & Brito, Ricardo, 2018. "Double rank analysis for research assessment," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 31-41.
    3. Brito, Ricardo & Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso, 2018. "Research assessment by percentile-based double rank analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 315-329.
    4. Hottenrott, Hanna & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2010. "Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-105, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro & Ricardo Brito, 2019. "Probability and expected frequency of breakthroughs: basis and use of a robust method of research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 213-235, April.
    6. Pierre Courtioux & François Métivier & Antoine Reberioux, 2019. "Scientific Competition between Countries: Did China Get What It Paid for?," Post-Print halshs-02307534, HAL.
    7. Zhenyue Zhao & Xuelian Pan & Weina Hua, 2021. "Comparative analysis of the research productivity, publication quality, and collaboration patterns of top ranked library and information science schools in China and the United States," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 931-950, February.
    8. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    9. Leydesdorff, Loet & Wagner, Caroline, 2009. "Macro-level indicators of the relations between research funding and research output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 353-362.
    10. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Tindaro Cicero & Peter Haddawy & Saeed-UL Hassan, 2017. "Explaining the transatlantic gap in research excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 217-241, January.
    11. Hird, Mackenzie D. & Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., 2017. "How complex international partnerships shape domestic research clusters: Difference-in-difference network formation and research re-orientation in the MIT Portugal Program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 557-572.
    12. Carmen Osuna & Laura Cruz-Castro & Luis Sanz-Menéndez, 2011. "Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(3), pages 575-592, March.
    13. Cinzia Daraio, 2017. "A framework for the Assessment of Research and its impacts," DIAG Technical Reports 2017-04, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    14. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2019. "Diversification versus specialization in scientific research: Which strategy pays off?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 51-57.
    15. Martin, Ben R., 2012. "The evolution of science policy and innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1219-1239.
    16. Benedetto Lepori & Aldo Geuna & Antonietta Mira, 2018. "Scientific Output of US and European Universities Scales Super-Linearly with Resources," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-22, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    17. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    18. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2020. "The relative impact of private research on scientific advancement," Papers 2012.04908, arXiv.org.
    19. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Haddawy, Peter & Cicero, Tindaro & Hassan, Saeed-Ul, 2017. "The solitude of stars. An analysis of the distributed excellence model of European universities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 435-454.
    20. Sandström, Ulf & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2018. "Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 365-384.

    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:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:1:p:14-23.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Oxford University Press to update the entry or send us the correct email address or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.