Country and Regional Scientific. Production Profiles. Research and Innovation

Transcription

1 Country and Regional Scientific Production Profiles Research and Innovation

2 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate C Research and Innovation Unit C.6 Economic analysis and indicators rtd-innovation-papers-studies@ec.europa.eu RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu Carmen.Marcus@ec.europa.eu Contact: Carmen Marcus, Matthieu Delescluse and Pierre Vigier (Head of unit) European Commission B-1049 Brussels

3 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Country and Regional Scientific Production Profiles Authors of the study David Campbell, Christian Lefebvre, Michelle Picard-Aitken, Grégoire Côté, Andréa Ventimiglia, Guillaume Roberge and Éric Archambault Science Metrix Inc, Canada 2013 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

4 This report is part of the study Analysis and Regular Update of Bibliometric Indicators carried out by Science Metrix-Canada under the coordination and guidance of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Directorate Research and Innovation, Economic analysis and indicators Unit. EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to numbers or these calls may be billed LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication, as well as the information included in it, do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Commission and in no way commit the institution. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013 ISBN doi: /45644 European Union, 2013 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Cover images: earth, # , Source: Shutterstock.com; bottom globe, PaulPaladin # , Source: Fotolia.com

5 Table of Contents Executive Summary... ii Tables... xvi Figures... xix Acronyms... xx 1 Introduction ERA Scientific Production Profile General Profile in FP7 Thematic Priorities, Overall in Scopus and in Economic Sectors Positional Analysis in FP7 Thematic Priorities Positional Analysis in main fields Positional Analysis in Economic Sectors Country-Level Scientific Production Profiles and Collaboration Patterns FP7 Thematic Priorities Main Fields Applied Science Arts & Humanities Economic & Social Sciences Health Sciences Natural Sciences General Fields Economic Sectors (NACE) Regional-Level (NUTS2) Scientific Production Profiles and Collaboration Patterns FP7 Thematic Priorities (grouped) Overall in Scopus Economic Sectors (NACE) (grouped) Conclusion Methods Bibliometric Indicators Graphic Representation of Data Radar Graphs Dashboards Methods for Matching Scientific Subfields to FP7 Thematic Priorities Methods for Matching Scientific Subfields to Economic Sectors General Approach for Matching Scientific Subfields to Economic Sectors (NACE) Methods for Matching Scientific Subfields to Economic Sectors (NACE) Results Appendix Limitations of Bibliometrics in the Social Sciences and Humanities

6 Executive Summary Background Science-Metrix has been selected as the provider of bibliometric indicators for the European Commission s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG Research), starting in September 2010 and extending to September This work involves the collection, analysis and updating of bibliometric data that will be integrated into the European Commission s evidence-based monitoring of progress towards the objectives set forth in the Lisbon framework and the post-lisbon Strategy for the European Research Area (ERA). The bibliometric component of this monitoring system is part of a package of six complementary studies reporting on the dynamics of research activities along the whole spectrum of knowledge, from R&D investments to publications, patents and licensing. The analyses provided by Science-Metrix to the European Commission focus on the scientific performance including impact and collaboration patterns of countries, regions and research performers (such as universities, public research institutes and companies). The statistics produced by Science-Metrix are based on a series of indicators designed to take into account national and sector specificities, as well as to allow for a comprehensive analysis of the evolution, interconnectivity, performance and impact of national research and innovation systems in Europe. They also provide an overall view of Europe s strengths and weaknesses in knowledge production across fields and subfields of science. In measuring progress towards past and current objectives, this information aims to support the coherent development of research policies for the ERA. The Present Report This is the second annual update of the report, produced in It covers the period. The report focuses on the bibliometric analysis of the scientific performance of European countries and regions within each of the 17 thematic priorities of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7). It also covers 22 main fields representing somewhat traditional scientific disciplines. Unlike in previous editions, this report also analyses the scientific performance of countries by economic sectors based on a specific aggregation scheme of NACE (Nomenclature générale des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne) categories. The report examines the production profiles and collaboration patterns of 42 countries and 50 NUTS2 regions. The 42 countries comprise the EU-27, candidate EU countries, members of the EFTA and other countries of interest, such as established (e.g., the United States [US]) or upcoming (e.g., China) global players. Selected NUTS2 regions include the 50 regions which published the largest number of peer-reviewed publications over the period. The production profiles are based on a selected set of bibliometric indicators that aim to compare scientific performance across countries and regions. These indicators include: Number of publications: publications are counted based on both full (FULL) and fractional counting (FRAC). Growth Index (GI): measures the percentage of increase of publications between two periods. In order to obtain a more accurate indicator, we used the last eight years of the actual study period for the calculation of the GI, as older data in Scopus may be incomplete. ii

7 Thus, in this report, the GI is calculated comparing the output of the 2008 to 2011 period to that of the 2004 to 2007 period. Specialisation Index (SI): an indicator of research intensity in a given research area. Average of Relative Citations (ARC): a field-normalised measure of scientific impact (which also takes into account the publication year and document type of scientific contributions in the normalisation process) based on the citations received by an entity s papers; thus, it is a direct measure of scientific impact. In this report, the ARC is based on data from the 2000 to 2008 period, due to incomplete citation windows for documents published later. Average of Relative Impact Factors (ARIF): a field-normalised measure of the scientific impact of publications produced by a given entity (e.g., the world, a country, a NUTS2 region, an institution) based on the impact factors of the journals in which they were published (also taking the publication year of scientific contributions into account in the normalisation process). As such, the ARIF is an indirect impact metric reflecting the average citation rate of the publication venue instead of the actual publications. As a result this indicator may serve as a proxy for the quality of the research performed by a given entity. Indeed, the more cited a journal, the more researchers will seek to publish in it and the more the editors will be in a position to select the best papers. Highly cited publications: the percentage of papers in the 10% most-cited papers in the reference database (making use of the normalised citation score of individual publications). Collaboration Index (CI): a scale-adjusted metric of scientific collaboration comparing the observed number of co-publications of an entity (e.g., a country or NUTS2 region) to that expected given the size of the scientific production of the entity. The report is primarily descriptive, focusing on the salient points relevant to the report s three main parts, which progress conceptually from a general overview of the ERA (Section 2) to country-level (Section 3) and regional-level profiles (Section 4). The report also includes a brief conclusion (Section 5) and a methods section for reference (Section 6). Key Findings ERA Scientific Production Profile (see Section 2) Section 2 focuses on the scientific performance of the ERA (all countries combined) as it compares to that of the US and Japan, which are also established leaders, as well as China, for which scientific production is rapidly growing. For FP7 thematic priorities The ERA published more peer-reviewed papers than China, Japan or the US in the FP7 thematic priorities (grouped). The percentage of increase in the ERA s output in the FP7 thematic priorities (grouped), between the first and second half of the 2004 to 2011 period, is 18% (growth index of 1.18). It is second to China (82%) among selected comparables. The increase in scientific output observed for the ERA (18%) in the FP7 thematic priorities is slightly smaller than that observed for the world (26%). The US (7%) experienced a small decrease in its scientific output in the last year of the study, but shows a slight growth overall for the 2004 to 2011 period. Japan (-2%) is experiencing a slight decrease. In terms of specialisation, the ERA devotes as much of its total scientific effort to FP7 thematic priorities (grouped) as does the world; i.e., it has the same percentage of its publications in FP7 thematic priorities as that observed at the world level. The US is slightly specialised in the research areas represented by the FP7 thematic priorities (grouped), whereas China and Japan s concentration of output in these areas is below the world s concentration. iii

8 The scientific impact, based on ARC, of the ERA is slightly higher than the world level in FP7 thematic priorities (grouped), overall in Scopus and for economic sectors (grouped). The US stands out among selected comparables, with a scientific impact clearly above the world level in FP7 thematic priorities (grouped), overall in Scopus and for economic sectors (grouped). Japan and China have scientific impact below the world level. In FP7 thematic priorities (grouped), the ERA s overall performance (i.e., when all indicators are considered jointly, including the number of publications) is superior to that of China and Japan and somewhat equivalent to that of the US. However, they each have their respective strengths and weaknesses. For instance, the overall performance of the ERA suffers somewhat from its lower scientific impact, whereas that of the US suffers somewhat from the smaller size of its production and smaller growth. The same applies in Scopus overall and in economic sectors (grouped). The ERA research efforts are distributed fairly evenly across the FP7 thematic priorities, with a slight specialisation in Health and a bit more in the Humanities, but less intensity in Space, Aeronautics, Other Transport Technologies, Energy, New Production Technologies and Materials (excluding Nanotechnology). The three countries the ERA is compared to exhibit a greater variability in their SI scores across FP7 thematic priorities, being highly specialised in some areas (e.g., China in Other Transport Technologies) and not at all specialised in others (e.g., China in Socio-Economic Sciences). In all individual FP7 thematic priorities, the size of the ERA s output (i.e., its number of publications over the 2000 to 2011 period) exceeds or resembles that of the US, China or Japan. The ERA s greatest level of impact is in areas in which it does not specialise, such as Energy, Other Transport Technologies, New Production Technologies and Aeronautics & Space. The US generally leads in terms of scientific impact by thematic priority and is followed by the ERA, Japan and China. For the 22 main fields (or overall in Scopus) Generally, many of the observations made for the FP7 hold true in the main 22 fields as well. The ERA published more peer-reviewed papers than China, Japan or the US and the increases or decreases in output over the study period, for each comparable entity, are similar to those seen for the FP7 thematic priorities. The ERA shows some specialisation in the main fields of Historical Studies, Visual & Performing Arts and Clinical Medicine, but is not specialised in Enabling & Strategic Technologies, Engineering, and General Science & Technology. For all other fields, the ERA s research intensity is close to the world level. In contrast, the comparable countries show much more variation in their level of specialisation; e.g., China is very specialised in General Science & Technologies, but not at all in Historical Studies. For the majority of main fields, the ERA is positioned near or above the world level in terms of scientific impact, and often has the highest level of impact in fields in which it does not specialise; e.g., in General Science & Technology, Enabling & Strategic Technologies and Engineering. The US scientific impact is above average for all main fields, while Japan and China s impact is mostly below the world average. iv

9 For the 28 economic sectors In terms of output size, growth and scientific impact, the patterns observed for the 28 NACE sectors are similar to those observed for the FP7 thematic priorities and the 22 research fields. The ERA s total output in the economic sectors (grouped) exceeds that of the US, China or Japan and its growth index (1.16) is only slightly smaller than that observed for FP7 priorities (1.18) or main fields (1.19). For all but one economic sector (Office Machinery and Computers) the ERA is positioned above the world level in terms of scientific impact. The ERA s impact is again highest in sectors in which it is not specialised (e.g., Electricity Distribution and Control, General Purpose Machinery and Machine Tools or Electrical Motors, Generators). As in the FP7 priorities and the main fields, the US scientific impact is above average for all economic sectors, while Japan and China s impact is mostly below the world average. Contrary to the pattern observed in the FP7 priorities, the ERA and the US are below the world level in terms of specialisation in the selected set of economic sectors (grouped) while Japan (SI of 1.12) and particularly China (SI of 1.57) are specialised. In fact, the ERA only specialises in Food Products and Beverages and Machinery for these Products, in Services for Computers and Related Activities and in Medical and Surgical Equipment. In the latter two areas, its SI is only slightly above world level. In all other sectors, the specialisation of the ERA ranges from slightly to moderately below the world level. Countries outside the ERA show greater variability in their specialisation across economic sectors, particularly China and Japan. Albeit its lower scientific impact, China has an overall strong performance in the selected economic sectors. Key Findings Country-Level Scientific Production Profiles (see Section 3) Section 3 focuses on the scientific performance of a set of 42 countries, including those in the ERA (EU-27 countries, candidate countries, EFTA countries and Israel) and selected comparable countries (China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Brazil, Russia and the US). When multiple indicators are used to characterise the scientific performance of entities (e.g., countries), it is often difficult to determine their position relative to one another, without a wellstructured ranking mechanism. To highlight the most salient results from the considerable amount of data presented in Section 3, Science-Metrix analysts have made use of expert judgement, aided by a multicriteria ranking tool (not presented in this report). This allowed for the identification of stand-out countries when considering all indicators jointly in each individual research area (whether FP7 thematic priorities, main fields or economic sectors); in particular, emphasis was placed on each country s size, growth, specialisation and impact (as measured with the ARC). In identifying leading countries in overall performance (i.e., all indicators combined), only those whose output size (in fractional counting) was greater than or equal to a minimum threshold were considered; this threshold has been set to different values depending on the research area based on natural breaks in the size distribution of countries publication outputs. For example, the minimum threshold in a large field such as Health will be higher than in smaller fields like Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. The application of this threshold inevitably leads to the exclusion of smaller countries that perform very well in both specialisation and impact. Therefore, the reader is referred to the presentation of individual indicators (Table III to Table v

10 LXXIII) for a more thorough understanding of the performances of countries or regions, in particular for smaller ones. In terms of the general performance of countries (i.e., when combining all bibliometric indicators) the key findings are as follows. FP7 Thematic Priorities (grouped): Among countries with more than 95,000 publications (FRAC) over the 2000 to 2011 period, those that stand out for a well-balanced performance across indicators include the US, the UK, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium and Sweden. China is remarkable for its very large output and high growth. When considering all 42 selected countries, Iceland, Luxembourg, Denmark and Norway are worthy of mention. For example, Denmark and Norway, although they have a smaller output than Switzerland, Belgium and Sweden, show a higher growth and specialisation while maintaining a comparable scientific impact. Iceland, with a rather small output, is strong in growth, specialisation and impact. Luxembourg, also a small producer, comes out strongly because of its high growth and specialisation as well as for its notable impact. Overall in Scopus: Among countries with at least 175,000 papers (FRAC) from 2000 to 2011 in Scopus, countries that stand out for a well-balanced performance across indicators include the US, the UK, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden. Again, China is remarkable for its very large output and high growth. Looking at the performances without a minimum threshold in output, one sees that countries with much smaller outputs can outperform bigger producers because they come out strongly in other indicators. For example, Denmark (99,500 papers FRAC) has a slightly higher growth and much larger impact (ARC of 1.50 vs. 1.19) than Germany (935,000 FRAC). Other countries that are worthy of mention for the same reasons are Luxembourg, Iceland and Cyprus. Luxembourg and Cyprus are strong mainly for their high growth indices and good impact, while Iceland has good growth and high scientific impact scores. Economic sectors (grouped): Among countries with output above 35,000 papers, few are performing above the world level both in specialisation and scientific impact in the selected economic sectors. Countries appear to perform strongly either in specialisation or in scientific impact. The countries that stand out in the first group (i.e., mostly high output, growth and specialisation) include China, the Republic of Korea, and India. The countries that stand out in the second group (i.e., mostly high output and impact and, to a lesser extent, growth and specialisation) include the US, Switzerland, Germany, France and Belgium. In fact, only one country demonstrates a well-balanced performance across all indicators, namely Portugal. Among countries with a smaller output, Luxembourg and Cyprus also have a well-balanced performance across the other indicators (i.e., growth, specialisation and impact). For FP7 thematic priorities Following is a list of countries among the 42 selected that stand out based primarily on the size, growth, specialisation and impact (any reference to scientific impact in the following summary relates to the ARC) of their scientific output in each FP7 thematic priority: Health: Among countries with at least 32,000 publications (FRAC), the US, the Netherlands, Denmark, the UK and Switzerland stand out for having a well-balanced performance across indicators. When considering all 42 selected countries, Malta and Iceland show good growth, specialisation and impact. Food, Agriculture and Fisheries: Among countries with at least 11,000 publications (FRAC), the US, Spain, the UK, France and Italy stand out. Brazil and Turkey are noteworthy for the growth and specialisation of their output in this area. When considering all 42 selected countries, Iceland, Ireland, Denmark, Norway and Finland stand out for their high specialisation and impact. vi

11 Biotechnology: Among countries with at least 1,900 publications (FRAC), the US, Germany, the UK, Sweden, and the Netherlands stand out. China, India and the Republic of Korea are worthy of mention for their growth and/or specialisation. Among smaller producers, Denmark and Ireland are both specialised with an impact above the world level. Information and Communication Technologies: Among countries with at least 9,000 publications (FRAC), China, the US, Switzerland, Israel and Greece stand out. Austria and Finland are both specialised with an impact above world level. Among smaller producers, Luxembourg is worthy of mention for its strong growth and specialisation while Iceland is progressing in growth and impact. Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Among countries with at least 700 publications (FRAC), the US, the Republic of Korea, China, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland stand out. Note that China and the Republic of Korea do not have an impact above world level, but they do have large outputs combined with strong growth and specialisation. Among smaller producers, Ireland is worthy of mention as it is specialised with an impact well above world level and its output is growing. Materials (excluding Nanotechnologies): Among countries with at least 8,000 publications (FRAC), China, the US, Japan, the Republic of Korea, India and France stand out. As is generally the case in other areas where China excels, its strengths are the size, growth and specialisation of its output. Japan has similar strengths although its impact is higher but its growth is not as strong (its output is actually decreasing). New Production Technologies: Among countries with at least 3,500 publications (FRAC), China, the US, Italy, France and the Netherlands stand out. The Republic of Korea and Japan have a large output combined with a good specialisation. Among smaller producers, Cyprus is remarkable for its high growth, specialisation and impact. Switzerland and Belgium have the highest ARC. Construction and Construction Technologies: Among countries with at least 1,400 publications (FRAC), the US, the UK, Turkey, the Netherlands and Sweden stand out. China has a large output combined with a good growth and specialisation. Among smaller producers, Denmark demonstrates very well-balanced performance across indicators. Energy: Among countries with at least 4,500 publications (FRAC), China, the US, the Republic of Korea, Turkey, Spain and Japan stand out. The Republic of Korea is remarkable for being the only country among those with at least 4,500 papers to show both a high specialisation and impact. It also has a large output and good growth. Among smaller producers, Estonia is specialised with an impact above the world level. Environment (including Climate Change): Among countries with at least 6,500 publications (FRAC), the US, Norway, Switzerland, the UK and Sweden stand out. Among smaller producers, Iceland, Estonia and Denmark are both specialised with an impact above world level. Aeronautics and Space (the same finding applies to both thematic priorities): Among countries with at least 750 papers (FRAC), the US, China, the Republic of Korea and Russia stand out. Both the US and Russia are specialised with an impact slightly above world level. Among smaller producers, Bulgaria is specialised with an impact above world level, although its output is very small. Countries with a high impact also include Switzerland, Greece, Finland and Israel. Each of these has a very small output. Automobiles: Among countries with at least 170 papers (FRAC), the Republic of Korea, China, the US, Finland, Denmark and Sweden stand out. Note that the Republic of Korea has an impact near the world level combined with a large output and very strong specialisation. Similarly, China s impact is near the world level and it has a large output combined with strong growth and specialisation. vii

12 Other Transport Technologies: Among countries with at least 2,700 papers (FRAC), China, the US, Spain, the Republic of Korea and Turkey stand out. The Republic of Korea is the only one among them to be specialised with an impact above world level. Among smaller producers, Lithuania performs extremely well across all indicators. Portugal also has an overall good performance. Socio-Economic Sciences: Among countries with at least 3,600 papers (FRAC), the US the UK, the Netherlands, Norway and Israel stand out. They are all specialised with impact scores above world level. Among smaller producers, Cyprus and Luxembourg are particularly remarkable for their specialisation; their respective impact scores are near the world level. Note: due to the limitations of bibliometrics in the Social Sciences, these results should be interpreted with care (see Section 6.5). Humanities: Among countries with at least 2,400 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, Croatia, the Netherlands and Sweden stand out. Except for Croatia and Sweden, they are specialised with impact scores above world level. Croatia is remarkable for its high growth and strong specialisation. Its impact is below world level. Sweden s impact is above world level and its SI is just below world level. Among smaller producers, Iceland, Norway and Denmark are specialised with impact scores above world level and good growth. Note: due to the limitations of bibliometrics in the Social Sciences, these results should be interpreted with care (see Section 6.5). Security: Among countries with at least 350 papers (FRAC), the US, Turkey, China, Greece, India, Spain and Portugal stand out. Turkey, Greece, India and Portugal have very wellbalanced performances across all indicators. Among smaller producers, Slovenia also has a very well-balanced performance across indicators although its output is very small. General observations in FP7 thematic priorities: China, and to a lesser extent the Republic of Korea and India, come out strongly in diverse areas. Most often, their strengths relate to the size, growth and specialisation of their production. Only rarely do they show a good impact. This is, especially for China, due to a database bias. See explanations later in this summary. Eastern European countries, although they have smaller outputs, often show strong growth and/or specialisation in many FP7 areas. In particular, although Romania is not present among the countries that stand out across areas, it consistently has a high growth with one of the largest outputs among Eastern European countries. For the 22 main fields (or overall in Scopus) Following is a list of countries among the 42 selected, that stand out based primarily on size, growth, specialisation and impact (any reference to scientific impact in the following summary relates to the ARC) of their scientific output in each main field: Applied Sciences Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry: Among countries with at least 11,000 publications (FRAC), the US, Spain, the UK, France and Italy stand out. Brazil and Turkey are noteworthy for the growth and specialisation of their output in this area. When considering all 42 selected countries, Iceland, Ireland, Denmark, Norway and Finland stand out for their high specialisation and impact. Built Environment & Design: Among countries with at least 1,400 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden stand out. All four countries are specialised with an impact above world level. Among smaller producers, Denmark is remarkable for a wellbalanced performance across indicators. viii

13 Enabling & Strategic Technologies: Among countries with at least 11,000 papers (FRAC), China, the US, Japan, Germany and the Republic of Korea stand out. Among them, Japan and the Republic of Korea are the only ones to score above the world level for both specialisation and impact. Among the other countries with more than 11,000 papers, many (e.g., Spain and the Netherlands) have impact scores above those of the countries previously mentioned, but do not perform as well for other indicators. Among smaller producers, Cyprus and Iceland have strong growth and high impact scores. Engineering: Among countries with at least 4,900 papers (FRAC), China, Romania, the US, Portugal, and the Republic of Korea stand out. China and Romania are highly specialised with a good growth (especially the latter). However, they both have an impact below world level. Portugal is the most remarkable for its high specialisation combined with high impact. Among the other countries with more than 4,900 papers, many (e.g., Switzerland, Denmark and Belgium) have impact scores above those of the countries previously mentioned but they do not perform as well for other indicators. Among smaller producers, Lithuania and Cyprus are remarkable for their combined high growth, specialisation and impact. Information & Communication Technologies: Among countries with at least 9,000 publications (FRAC), China, the US, Switzerland, Israel and Greece stand out. Austria and Finland are both specialised with an impact above world level. Among smaller producers, Luxembourg is worthy of mention for its strong growth and specialisation while Iceland is doing well in growth and impact. Arts & Humanities (Note: due to the limitations of bibliometrics in the Social Sciences and Humanities, these results should be interpreted with care.) Communications & Textual Studies: Among countries with at least 400 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, the Netherlands, Israel and Sweden stand out. In particular, the first four countries are clearly specialised with impact scores above the world level. None of the smaller producers is specialised with an impact above world level. Eastern European countries show strong growth. Historical Studies: Among countries with at least 1,700 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, Germany and the Netherlands stand out. They are all specialised with an impact above world level. Croatia has a remarkable growth and China has an unusually high impact clearly above world level. Among smaller producers, Iceland, Norway and Denmark have a very wellbalanced performance across indicators. Philosophy & Theology: Among countries with at least 300 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands stand out. Slovakia is remarkable for its very high specialisation. Visual & Performing Arts: Among countries with at least 124 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden have the best performances, scoring well across most indicators. The Republic of Korea is worthy of mention for its very high growth. Among smaller producers, Finland and Ireland stand out. Economics & Social Sciences Economics and Business: Among countries with at least 2,000 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Sweden stand out. Among smaller producers, Luxembourg and Lithuania stand out. Romania has a huge growth. Social Sciences: Among countries with at least 4,000 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, the Netherlands, Turkey and Israel stand out. Among smaller producers, Cyprus has a remarkable performance combining a high growth, strong specialisation and impact above world level. Norway, Ireland and Finland are also worthy of mention. Note: due to the limitations of bibliometrics in the Social Sciences and Humanities, these results should be interpreted with care (see Section 6.5). ix

14 Health Sciences Biomedical Research: Among countries with at least 15,500 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden stand out. Among smaller producers, Denmark, Iceland and Luxembourg are worthy of mention. Clinical Medicine: Among countries with at least 50,000 papers (FRAC), the US, the Netherlands, the UK, Switzerland, Germany and Sweden stand out. Among smaller producers, Malta is remarkable for its strong performance across most indicators except output size. Iceland, Denmark, Belgium, Austria and Norway all perform well. Psychology & Cognitive Sciences: Among countries with at least 1,900 papers (FRAC), the US, the Netherlands, the UK, Israel and Germany stand out. Public Health & Health Services: Among countries with at least 2,000 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark are all performing very well. Among smaller producers, Iceland, Ireland and Malta are all worthy of mention as they are specialised with an impact above world level. Natural Sciences Biology: Among countries with at least 4,800 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, Switzerland, Sweden and Spain stand out. Sweden and Spain are both specialised with an impact above world level. Brazil is worthy of mention for its large output, growth and specialisation. Among smaller producers, Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Portugal stand out. Chemistry: Among countries with at least 9,300 papers (FRAC), China, the US, India, Germany and Switzerland stand out. China and India are worthy of mention for the size, growth and specialisation of their production in Chemistry; their respective impact is below world level. Among smaller producers, Cyprus, Portugal and Liechtenstein stand out. Earth & Environmental Science: Among countries with at least 4,000 papers (FRAC), the US, Norway, Switzerland, the UK, France and Germany stand out. Among smaller producers, Iceland, Estonia and Denmark are worthy of mention, in particular for their specialisation and impact. Mathematics & Statistics: Among countries with at least 5,000 papers (FRAC), the US, China, France, Italy and Germany stand out. China s impact is unusually high in this field as its ARC is slightly above world level. Russia is worthy of mention for its high specialisation. Among smaller producers, those with a high impact include Norway, Switzerland and Denmark. Physics & Astronomy: Among countries with at least 14,000 papers (FRAC), the US, Germany, France, Switzerland and the UK stand out. Russia, China and Japan are worthy of mention for their output size as well as their growth and/or specialisation. Among smaller producers, Cyprus is remarkable for its growth and high impact. Finally, Liechtenstein is specialised with an impact above world level. General Fields General Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences: Among countries with at least 160 papers, the US, the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands stand out. Except Sweden, they are all specialised in this field with an impact above world level. Sweden has the highest impact among the 42 selected countries. Among smaller contributors, Denmark, Switzerland and Finland stand out. Note: due to the limitations of bibliometrics in the Social Sciences and Humanities, these results should be interpreted with care (see Section 6.5). For example, there is a clear bias in favour of the US and the UK in terms of output size. General Science & Technology: Among countries with at least 1,500 papers (FRAC), the US, the UK, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands stand out mostly for the size of their production, specialisation near or above world level and high impact. Among smaller x

15 producers, Estonia stands out for a well-balanced output across indicators and a particularly strong growth. Ireland is notable for its high impact. China is worthy of mention for its large output and high specialisation. Note that its very low impact in this area is due to a database bias in its disfavour. For instance, there are several important Chinese journals appearing in this field which, given their small international visibility, will not be as cited by other nations as Chinese publications appearing in international journals. Furthermore, a portion of Chinese citations to these journals will not be appropriately taken into account since they do not appear as source materials in Scopus. Adding this to the fact that the citation counts of papers published in these journals are normalised against some of the most cited papers in the world Science and Nature appear in this field as well the scientific impact of China is further reduced. To appreciate the extent of negative bias in disfavour of China, its ARC in this field is well below world level (i.e., 1.0) with a score of 0.12 in Scopus compared to a score above world level when based on a data source focusing on international literature of higher visibility to foreign nations. General observations in main fields are similar to those listed above for FP7 thematic priorities. For the 28 economic sectors Finally, the bullets below list countries among the 42 selected that stand out based primarily on the size, growth, specialisation and impact (any reference to scientific impact in the following summary relates to the ARC) of their scientific output in each economic sector: Manufacture of Food Products and Beverages and Manufacture of Machinery for these Products: Among countries with at least 3,200 papers (FRAC), the US, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy and the UK stand out. The US is strong for its output and high impact. Spain combines high output and specialisation, while the Netherlands strength is mostly related to its high impact score. Countries with smaller output like Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, Finland and Norway mostly stand out for their specialisation and their high impact scores in this sector. Manufacture and Sales of Textiles and Manufacture of Machinery for these Products: Among countries with at least 240 papers (FRAC), China, the Republic of Korea, India, Japan and the US present the best overall performance. In addition to having the highest output, China s performance is clearly above the world in all other indicators (growth, specialisation and impact). The three other Asian countries are highly specialised in that sector. Turkey is also notable for its high specialisation score. Among countries with smaller output, Portugal exhibits high scores in growth, specialisation and impact. Reproduction of Recorded Media and Related Manufactured Goods: Among countries with at least 9,500 papers (FRAC), China, the US, India, Germany and France stand out. China and India present high growth rates, and the scientific impact of the latter is close to world level. Germany and France stand out for their high output and their impact above world level. Among smaller producers, Luxembourg, Latvia and Romania stand out for their high growth and specialisation scores. Switzerland is strong for its scientific impact. Manufacture of Basic Chemicals and Manufacture of Paints, Varnishes and Similar Coatings and Glues and Gelatins: Among countries with at least 5,500 papers (FRAC), the US, China, India, Germany and the republic of Korea stand out. The three Asian countries show high growth and specialisation but low impact, while the opposite applies to Germany and the US. Among countries with smaller output, Portugal exhibits high scores in growth, specialisation and impact. Manufacture of Pharmaceuticals: Among countries with at least 3,000 papers (FRAC), the US, India, China, Switzerland and Italy stand out. The US has high output and strong impact, while India is highly specialised and exhibits a high growth rate. Switzerland stands out mainly for its high scientific impact. Among smaller producers, Romania shows a very high growth rate in this sector, although its scientific impact remains low. xi

16 Manufacture of Plastic Products: Among countries with at least 1,000 papers (FRAC), China, the US, Japan, Germany and France stand out. China s output, growth and specialisation are high, while the US scientific impact is more important. Japan has high output and specialises in this sector, while Germany and France are clearly above the world level in terms of scientific impact. Among smaller producers, Lithuania stands out for its high growth and specialisation, and Belgium, as well as Greece, show high impact scores. Manufacture of Other Non-metallic Mineral Products: Among countries with at least 8,000 papers (FRAC), China, Japan, the US, the republic of Korea and India stand out. China s strengths are mostly related to the size, growth and specialisation of its output. Japan and the republic of Korea are highly specialised, while India exhibits a high growth index. Among countries with smaller output, Latvia combines high specialisation and growth scores, while Switzerland and Denmark stand out for the high impact of their publications. Manufacture of General Purpose Machinery and Machine Tools: Among countries with at least 1,400 papers (FRAC), the countries that stand out the most are China, the US, France, the republic of Korea, France and Japan. China has high output, growth and specialisation, but still exhibits a very low impact. The US and France are not specialised in this sector, but have a high scientific impact. Japan stands out mostly for its high output and its specialisation above world level. Smaller producers such as Croatia and Romania are noticeable for their output growth and specialisation in this sector, while Switzerland stands out for the scientific impact of its publications. Manufacture of Agricultural and Forestry Machinery: Among countries with at least 4,000 papers (FRAC), China, Brazil, the US, Turkey and India stand out. China and Brazil s strengths are mostly related to their output size, their growth rate and their specialisation in this sector, while the US has strong output and impact. Considering countries with smaller output, Denmark and Switzerland are noticeable for their strong impact. Manufacture of Weapons and Ammunition: Among countries with at least 3,000 papers (FRAC), the countries that stand out the most are the US, China, Switzerland, Germany, Italy and Finland. The US has by far the highest output, which is close to twice that of China. Switzerland comes out strongly for its high scientific impact while Finland is clearly specialised with an impact above world level. Among smaller producers, Cyprus stands out for its high growth rate, while Iceland combines high specialisation and impact in this sector. Manufacture of Domestic Appliances: Among countries with at least 1,500 papers (FRAC), China, the US, France, the Republic of Korea and the UK stand out. The US and China s output is far above any other selected countries. China s growth and specialisation are strong, while the US has a much higher scientific impact. It is worth noting that the Republic of Korea scores above world level in terms of impact in this sector. Belgium is worthy of mention for its scientific impact. Among smaller producers, Lithuania and Romania combine high growth and specialisation, while Denmark s scientific impact is way above world level. Manufacture of Office Machinery and Computers: Among countries with at least 80 papers (FRAC), the US, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Greece stand out. There are few publications in this sector, and the US output is far above all other countries. The US is also specialised and has high scientific impact. Greece is specialised in this sector, while the three other countries stand out mainly for their scientific impact. Manufacture of Electrical Motors, Generators and Transformers: Among countries with at least 2,000 papers (FRAC), China, the US, the Republic of Korea, Turkey and Spain are the most noticeable. China is very strong in terms of output, growth and specialisation. The Republic of Korea is remarkable for its relatively strong impact in this sector, while Spain is strong in both growth and impact. Japan is also noticeable for its high output in this sector. Among countries with smaller outputs, Romania (high growth and specialisation), Cyprus (high growth and impact) as well as Denmark (high impact) stand out. xii

17 Manufacture of Electricity Distribution and Control Apparatus; Manufacture of Insulated Wire and Cable; Manufacture of Accumulators, Primary Cells and Primary Batteries; Electricity, Gas, Steam and Hot Water Supply: Among countries with at least 2,500 papers (FRAC), China, The US, Spain, Turkey and the Republic of Korea stand out. The three latter combine a high growth rate with a strong impact. The US stands out mainly for its high output, while China strongly specialises in this sector. Considering also smaller producers, Lithuania is worth noting for its high specialisation and impact scores, and Romania for the impressive growth of its output. Manufacture of Lighting Equipment and Electric Lamps: Among countries with at least 1,700 papers (FRAC), China, the US, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Germany stand out. China, Japan and mostly the Republic of Korea are specialised in this sector, but only the US and Germany have high scientific impact. Although they score lower on most indicators, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Sweden are noteworthy for their high impact. Among smaller producers, Denmark exhibits a high impact even though it is not specialised in this sector. Manufacture of Electrical Equipment for Engines and Vehicles: Among countries with at least 800 papers (FRAC), the US, China, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands and Sweden show the best overall performances. The US and China stand far above all other countries in terms of output. The Netherland and Sweden have strong impact, and the latter is also specialised in this sector. Among countries with smaller output, Lithuania exhibits a high growth and specialisation index, while Denmark has the highest impact of all 42 countries analysed in this study. Manufacture of Electronic Valves and Tubes and Other Electronic Components: Among countries with at least 700 papers (FRAC), the countries that stand out the most are the US, Ireland, Portugal, the Netherlands and Switzerland. In addition to this selection, Germany is noticeable for the high growth of its output in this sector. Ireland and Portugal are strong in terms of growth, as well as specialisation and impact. Switzerland is clearly specialised in this sector, and also exhibits an impact score above the world level. Manufacture of Television and Radio Transmitters and Apparatus for Line Telephony and Line Telegraphy as well as of Television and Radio Receivers, Sound or Video Recording or Reproducing Apparatus and Associated Goods: Among countries with at least 1,800 papers (FRAC), China, the US, the Republic of Korea, Japan and Switzerland stand out. China has the highest output, and shows also high growth and specialisation indexes. The Republic of Korea and Japan also specialise in this sector, while the US and Switzerland s publications have stronger scientific impact. Among smaller producers, Lithuania and Romania stand out for their growth and specialisation. Manufacture of Medical and Surgical Equipment: Among countries with at least 1,800 papers (FRAC), the ones that stand out are the US, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. The US output is by far the highest among the 42 selected countries. The US is also slightly specialised and has a good impact score. The Netherlands and Switzerland stand out for their high impact scores, while Germany and Belgium are more specialised. Among smaller producers, Denmark stands out for the high scientific impact of its publications. Manufacture of Instruments and Appliances for Measuring, Checking, Testing, Navigating and Other Purposes, Industrial Process Control Equipment and Optical Instruments and Photographic Equipment: Among countries with at least 4,900 papers (FRAC), China, the US, Spain and Germany stand out. China is strong mainly for its high output, growth and specialisation index. The US combines high output and scientific impact, while Switzerland stands out mainly for its high impact. Among smaller producers, Romania, Ireland and Denmark stand out. Manufacture of Motor Vehicles, Manufacture of Parts and Accessories for Motor Vehicles and their Engines: Among countries with at least 200 papers (FRAC), the US, China, the Republic of Korea, Finland and Sweden stand out. The four latter are highly xiii

18 specialised with impact near or above world level, while the US has strong impact. Among smaller countries, Denmark and Switzerland, although their output is very small, have high impact scores. Denmark is also specialised although this is not the case for Switzerland. Manufacture of Aircraft and Spacecraft: Among countries with at least 300 papers (FRAC), the US, China, Israel and Italy stand out. Both the US and China have large outputs and are highly specialised. The US is stronger in terms of impact but shows a decrease in output. On the contrary, China s growth is high and its impact low. The Republic of Korea is strong in both these indicators. Among smaller countries, Switzerland stands out for its very high impact. Recycling: Among countries with at least 1,600 papers (FRAC), the US, China, India, the Netherlands and Spain stand out. India is highly specialised, while the Netherlands and Spain present high impact scores. Among the smaller producers, Romania stands out for its extremely high growth, while Denmark and Switzerland exhibit high impact scores. Collection, Purification and Distribution of Water: Among countries with at least 800 papers (FRAC), China, the US, Portugal, Norway and Switzerland stand out. India is also notable for its high specialisation score and output. Switzerland has the highest impact, while Portugal and Norway score high in growth, specialisation and impact. Among countries with smaller output, Lithuania also stands out in terms of growth, specialisation and impact. Construction: Among countries with at least 400 papers (FRAC), China, the US, Spain, Norway and the Republic of Korea stand out. China has by far the greatest output and shows a very high specialisation score. The Republic of Korea and Spain are strong in terms of growth, although the latter has a much higher impact score. Although its output is below the 400 threshold, Lithuania clearly stands out in this sector for growth, specialisation and impact. Cargo Handling and Storage: Among countries with at least 700 papers (FRAC), the US, China, Greece, the Netherlands and Belgium stand out. China s strengths are mostly related to the size, growth and specialisation of its output. The others are specialised with an impact above world level. Among smaller producers, Cyprus and Portugal are both specialised with an impact clearly above world level. Telecommunications: Among countries with at least 3,000 papers (FRAC), China, the US, the republic of Korea, Germany and Italy stand out. China and the US stand far above all other countries in terms of output. As in many other sectors, China exhibits high growth and specialisation scores, but low impact, while the opposite applies to US. Among countries with smaller output, Switzerland stands out for its high scientific impact. Services for Computer and Related Activities: Among countries with at least 2,300 papers (FRAC), the US, Israel, Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland stand out. The US has by far the largest output and is above the world level in terms of specialisation. Austria is strong in terms of growth, while the three other countries show high scientific impact scores. Among smaller countries, Luxembourg stands out for its growth and high level of specialisation. China and other upcoming global players (e.g., the Republic of Korea and India) stand out for the size of their production as well as their growth in many of the selected economic sectors. Established leaders in science (e.g., the US, Switzerland, the Netherlands) still make their mark for their respective level of production although they often seem to be losing ground in terms of their share of world output over time. On the other hand, traditional leaders often perform better in terms of their scientific impact and propensity to collaborate internationally compared to China and other emerging players. Note however, that China s impact is increasing steadily over time. For example, China s ARC has risen from 0.51 in 1996 to 0.75 in The number of scientific subfields in which its impact is clearly above world level also increased over time as measured with Scopus which appears to underestimate China s impact due, at least in part, to the inclusion xiv