33,981 research outputs found
The geography of references in elite articles: What countries contribute to the archives of knowledge
This study is intended to find an answer for the question on which national
"shoulders" the worldwide top-level research stands. Traditionally, national
scientific standings are evaluated in terms of the number of citations to their
papers. We raise a different question: instead of analyzing the citations to
the countries' articles (the forward view), we examine referenced publications
from specific countries cited in the most elite publications (the
backward-citing-view). "Elite publications" are operationalized as the top-1%
most-highly cited articles. Using the articles published during the years 2004
to 2013, we examine the research referenced in these works. Our results confirm
the well-known fact that China has emerged to become a major player in science.
However, China still belongs to the low contributors when countries are ranked
as contributors to the cited references in top-1% articles. Using this
perspective, the results do not point to a decreasing trend for the USA; in
fact, the USA exceeds expectations (compared to its publication share) in terms
of contributions to cited references in the top-1% articles. Switzerland,
Sweden, and the Netherlands also are shown at the top of the list. However, the
results for Germany are lower than statistically expected
Prolific Inventor Productivity and Mobility: A Western/Asian com-parison. Evidence from US Patent Data for 12 Countries
This paper provides new insights into the role of individual inventors inthe innovation process. Individuals are central in this creative process becauseinnovation is not simply a product of firms and organizations; it requiresindividual creativity (Rothaermel and Hess, 2007). We focus our analysis on prolific inventors (a rich sub category of inventors) because they contribute sohugely to national invention totals (Le Bas et al., 2010) and tend to produceinventions that have more economic value (Gambardella et al., 2005; Gay et al.,2008). Converging empirical evidence has established the significance ofprolific inventors (Ernst et al., 2000). Previous studies of prolific (or “key”)inventors have focused more on the firms in which they work or on the industriesin which the firms operate. Narin and Breitzman’s (1995) seminal work on thetopic is based on an analysis of only four firms in a single sector and a recentpaper by Pilkington et al. (2009) uses only two firms. In contrast to these studieson small samples, we use a very large data set which includes thousands ofinventors in thousands of firms from several countries.Artykuł przedstawia nowe spojrzenie na rolę indywidualnych wynalazców w procesie tworzenia innowacji. Wynalazcy indywidualni stanowią element centralny procesu twórczego. Innowacja nie jest produktem firm i organizacji, wymaga indywidualnej kreatywności (Rothaermel i Hess 2007). Badanie koncentruje się na analizie płodnych wynalazców. Wynalazcy tej kategorii mają najwyższy udział w generowaniu ogółu wynalazków (Le Bas et al. 2010) o wysokiej wartości ekonkomicznej (Gambardella et al. 2005). Poprzednie badania kluczowych wynalazców skupiały się analizie firm, w których pracują lub w branżach, w których te firmy działają
Science Quality and the Value of Inventions
Despite decades of research, the relationship between the quality of science
and the value of inventions has remained unclear. We present the result of a
large-scale matching exercise between 4.8 million patent families and 43
million publication records. We find a strong positive relationship between
quality of scientific contributions referenced in patents and the value of the
respective inventions. We rank patents by the quality of the science they are
linked to. Strikingly, high-rank patents are twice as valuable as low-rank
patents, which in turn are about as valuable as patents without direct science
link. We show this core result for various science quality and patent value
measures. The effect of science quality on patent value remains relevant even
when science is linked indirectly through other patents. Our findings imply
that what is considered "excellent" within the science sector also leads to
outstanding outcomes in the technological or commercial realm.Comment: 44 page
Factors predicting the scientific wealth of nations
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that economic affluence is one of the main predictors of the scientific wealth of nations. Yet, the link is not as straightforward as is often presented. First, only a limited set of relatively affluent countries is usually studied. Second, there are differences between equally rich countries in their scientific success. The main aim of the present study is to find out which factors can enhance or suppress the effect of the economic wealth of countries on their scientific success, as measured by the High Quality Science Index (HQSI). The HQSI is a composite indicator of scientific wealth, which in equal parts considers the mean citation rate per paper and the percentage of papers that have reached the top 1% of citations in the Essential Science Indicators (ESI; Clarivate Analytics) database during the 11-year period from 2008 to 2018. Our results show that a high position in the ranking of countries on the HQSI can be achieved not only by increasing the number of high-quality papers but also by reducing the number of papers that are able to pass ESI thresholds but are of lower quality. The HQSI was positively and significantly correlated with the countries’ economic indicators (as measured by gross national income and Research and Development expenditure as a percentage from GDP), but these correlations became insignificant when other societal factors were controlled for. Overall, our findings indicate that it is small and well-governed countries with a long-standing democratic past that seem to be more efficient in translating economic wealth into high-quality science
Recommended from our members
Most UK scientists who publish extremely highly-cited papers do not secure funding from major public and charity funders: A descriptive analysis
The UK is one of the largest funders of health research in the world, but little is known about how health funding is spent. Our study explores whether major UK public and charitable health research funders support the research of UK-based scientists producing the most highly-cited research. To address this question, we searched for UK-based authors of peer-reviewed papers that were published between January 2006 and February 2018 and received over 1000 citations in Scopus. We explored whether these authors have held a grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Wellcome Trust and compared the results with UK-based researchers who serve currently on the boards of these bodies. From the 1,370 papers relevant to medical, biomedical, life and health sciences with more than 1000 citations in the period examined, we identified 223 individuals from a UK institution at the time of publication who were either first/last or single authors. Of those, 164 are still in UK academic institutions, while 59 are not currently in UK academia (have left the country, are retired, or work in other sectors). Of the 164 individuals, only 59 (36%; 95% CI: 29-43%) currently hold an active grant from one of the three funders. Only 79 (48%; 95% CI: 41-56%) have held an active grant from any of the three funders between 2006-2017. Conversely, 457 of the 664 board members of MRC, Wellcome Trust, and NIHR (69%; 95% CI: 65-72%) have held an active grant in the same period by any of these funders. Only 7 out of 655 board members (1.1%) were first, last or single authors of an extremely highly-cited paper.
There are many reasons why the majority of the most influential UK authors do not hold a grant from the country’s major public and charitable funding bodies. Nevertheless, the results are worrisome and subscribe to similar patterns shown in the US. We discuss possible implications and suggest ways forward
Impact of Intellectual Property Rights Reforms on the Diffusion of Knowledge through FDI
This paper examines the impact of intellectual property rights (IPR) reforms on the technology flows between the U.S. and countries where U.S. multinationals have established affiliates. We use patent citations as a proxy for knowledge spillovers to examine whether the diffusion of new technology between the host countries and the U.S. is accelerated by the reforms. We test the hypothesis that strengthening patent protection facilitates knowledge flows (in the form of patent citations) between U.S. multinationals and their subsidiaries in the reforming countries and between other U.S. firms and reforming countries domestic firms. Our results suggest that the reforms favor innovative efforts of domestic firms in the reforming countries rather than U.S. affiliates efforts. In other words, reforms mediate the technology flows from the U.S. to the reforming countries.intellectual property rights, patents, spillovers, R&D, FDI
- …