IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v74y2008i2d10.1007_s11192-008-0212-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relations between national research investment and publication output: Application to an American Paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Robert D. Shelton

    (Loyola College)

Abstract

The term “European Paradox” describes the perceived failure of the EU to capture full benefits of its leadership of science as measured by publications and some other indicators. This paper investigates what might be called the “American Paradox,” the decline in scientific publication share of the U.S. despite world-leading investments in research and development (R&D) — particularly as that decline has accelerated in recent years. A multiple linear regression analysis was made of which inputs to the scientific enterprise are most strongly correlated with the number of scientific papers produced. Research investment was found to be much more significant than labor input, government investment in R&D was much more significant than that by industry, and government non-defense investment was somewhat more significant than its defense investment. Since the EU actually leads the U.S. in this key component, this could account for gradual loss of U.S. paper share and EU assumption of leadership of scientific publication in the mid-1990s. More recently the loss of U.S. share has accelerated, and three approaches analyzed this phenomenon: (1) A companion paper shows that the SCI database has not significantly changed to be less favorable to the U.S.; thus the decline is real and is not an artifact of the measurement methods. (2) Budgets of individual U.S. research agencies were correlated with overall paper production and with papers in their disciplines. Funding for the U.S. government civilian, non-healthcare sector was flat in the last ten years, resulting in declining share of papers. Funding for its healthcare sector sharply increased, but there were few additional U.S. healthcare papers. While this inefficiency contributes to loss of U.S. share, it is merely a specific example of the general syndrome that increased American investments have not produced increased publication output. (3) In fact the decline in publication share appears to be due to rapidly increasing R&D investments by China, Taiwan, S. Korea, and Singapore. A model shows that in recent years it is a country’s share of world investment that is most predictive of its publication share. While the U.S. has increased its huge R&D investment, its investment share still declined because of even more rapidly increasing investments by these Asian countries. This has likely led to their sharply increased share of scientific publication, which must result in declines of shars of others — the U.S. and more recently, the EU.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:74:y:2008:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-008-0212-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-008-0212-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-008-0212-2
    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/s11192-008-0212-2?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. James Adams & Zvi Griliches, 1996. "Measuring Science: An Exploration," NBER Working Papers 5478, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou, 2005. "Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(3), pages 617-630, June.
    3. Tijssen, Robert J. W. & van Wijk, Erik, 1999. "In search of the European Paradox: an international comparison of Europe's scientific performance and knowledge flows in information and communication technologies research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 519-543, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Robert D. Shelton & Geoffrey M. Holdridge, 2004. "The US-EU race for leadership of science and technology: Qualitative and quantitative indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 353-363, August.
    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. Elham Erfanian & Amir B. Ferreira Neto, 2017. "Scientific output: labor or capital intensive? An analysis for selected countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 461-482, July.
    2. Wen-Chi Hung & Ling-Chu Lee & Min-Hua Tsai, 2009. "An international comparison of relative contributions to academic productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 703-718, December.
    3. Aparna Basu, 2014. "The Albuquerque model and efficiency indicators in national scientific productivity with respect to manpower and funding in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 531-539, August.
    4. Carmen Osuna & Laura Cruz Castro & Luis Sanz Menéndez, 2010. "Knocking down some Assumptions about the Effects of Evaluation Systems on Publications," Working Papers 1010, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    5. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2020. "Creativity-enhancing technological change in the production of scientific knowledge," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 489-500, July.
    6. R. D. Shelton, 2020. "Scientometric laws connecting publication counts to national research funding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 181-206, April.
    7. Paulo Henrique Santos Gonçalves & Thiago Gonçalves-Souza & Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque, 2020. "Chronic anthropogenic disturbances in ecology: a bibliometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1103-1117, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2021. "Scientific publications at U.S. federal research laboratories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2227-2248, March.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff, 2008. "The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(1), pages 159-167, July.
    11. Antonio Fernández-Cano & Manuel Torralbo & Mónica Vallejo, 2012. "Time series of scientific growth in Spanish doctoral theses (1848–2009)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 15-36, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Oguz K. Baskurt, 2011. "Time series analysis of publication counts of a university: what are the implications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(3), pages 645-656, March.
    14. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2021. "Technological change in the production of new scientific knowledge: a second look," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 371-381, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Sánchez-Jiménez, Rodrigo & Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. & Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2017. "The role of guarantor in scientific collaboration: The neighbourhood matters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 103-116.
    17. Lu, Kun & Wolfram, Dietmar, 2010. "Geographic characteristics of the growth of informetrics literature 1987–2008," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 591-601.
    18. A. Basu & P. Foland & G. Holdridge & R. D. Shelton, 2018. "China’s rising leadership in science and technology: quantitative and qualitative indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 249-269, October.
    19. Elham Erfanian & Amir B. Ferreira Neto, 2017. "Scientific output: labor or capital intensive? An analysis for selected countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 461-482, July.

    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. Gregory J Hather & Winston Haynes & Roger Higdon & Natali Kolker & Elizabeth A Stewart & Peter Arzberger & Patrick Chain & Dawn Field & B Robert Franza & Biaoyang Lin & Folker Meyer & Vural Ozdemir & , 2010. "The United States of America and Scientific Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-9, August.
    2. Gazni, Ali, 2020. "The growing number of patent citations to scientific papers: Changes in the world, nations, and fields," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    3. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    4. Robert D. Shelton & Patricia Foland & Roman Gorelskyy, 2009. "Do new SCI journals have a different national bias?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(2), pages 351-363, May.
    5. Xiaojun Hu & Ronald Rousseau, 2009. "A comparative study of the difference in research performance in biomedical fields among selected Western and Asian countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 475-491, November.
    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. Fei Shu & Wen Lou & Stefanie Haustein, 2018. "Can Twitter increase the visibility of Chinese publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 505-519, July.
    8. Chi Mai Nguyen & Jae-Yong Choung, 2020. "Scientific knowledge production in China: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1279-1303, August.
    9. Luciano Levin & Pablo Jensen & Pablo Kreimer, 2016. "Does Size Matter? The Multipolar International Landscape of Nanoscience," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere & Martin Meyer, 2008. "‘Triad’ or ‘tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(1), pages 71-88, January.
    11. Loet Leydesdorff, 2008. "The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(1), pages 159-167, July.
    12. Aparna Basu, 2010. "Does a country’s scientific ‘productivity’ depend critically on the number of country journals indexed?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 507-516, March.
    13. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    14. Yann Kossi & Jean-Yves Lesueur & Mareva Sabatier, 2016. "Publish or teach? The role of the scientific environment on academics’ multitasking," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(3), pages 487-506.
    15. Jiancheng Guan & Gangbo Wang, 2010. "A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 331-343, August.
    16. Feng Li & Yong Yi & Xiaolong Guo & Wei Qi, 2012. "Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: based on a two-dimensional approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 531-542, February.
    17. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Jos J. Winnink, 2018. "Capturing ‘R&D excellence’: indicators, international statistics, and innovative universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 687-699, February.
    18. Tuan V. Nguyen & Ly T. Pham, 2011. "Scientific output and its relationship to knowledge economy: an analysis of ASEAN countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 107-117, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Jo Royle & Louisa Coles & Dorothy Williams & Paul Evans, 2007. "Publishing in international journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 59-86, April.

    More about this item

    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:spr:scient:v:74:y:2008:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-008-0212-2. 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.