The end of the "European Paradox"

Scientometrics

Volumn 95, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 453-464

  Herranz, Neus ^a   Ruiz Castillo, Javier ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Citation impact; High and low impact indicators; Mean citation rate; Research performance; US European Union gap

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874801515     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0865-8     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Aksnes, D., Schneider, J., & Gunnarsson, M. (2012). Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 36-43.
2. Albarrán, P., Crespo, J., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2010). A comparison of the scientific performance of the U. S. and Europe at the turn of the 21st century. Scientometrics, 85, 329-344.
3. Albarrán, P., Crespo, J., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011a). The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics, 88, 385-397.
4. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011b). The measurement of low- and high-impact in citation distributions: technical results. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 48-63.
5. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011c). High- and low-impact citation measures: empirical applications. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 122-145.
6. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011d). Average-based versus high- and low-impact indicators for the evaluation of citation distributions. Research Evaluation, 20, 325-339.
7. Albarrán, P., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). References made and citations received by scientific articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 40-49.
8. Anderson, J., Collins, P., Irvine, J., Isard, P., Martin, B., Narin, F., et al. (1988). On-line approaches to measuring national scientific output: a cautionary tale. Science and Public Policy, 15, 153-161.
9. Bouyssou, D., & Marchant, T. (2011). Bibliometric rankings of journals based on impact factors: an axiomatic approach. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 75-86.
10. Delanghe, H., Sloan, B., & Muldur, U. (2011). European research policy and bibliometric indicators, 1990-2005. Scientometrics, 87, 389-398.
11. Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Sylos Labini, M. (2006). The relationship between science, technologies, and their industrial exploitation: an illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called 'European Paradox'. Research Policy, 35, 1450-1464.
12. Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Sylos Labini, M. (2009). "Does the 'European Paradox' still hold? Did it ever?" In: H. Delanghe, B. Sloan, U. Muldur (Eds.), European science and technology policy: towards integration or fragmentation? (pp. 1450-1464). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
13. Foster, J. E., Greeer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica, 52, 761-766.
14. Glänzel, W. (2007). Characteristic scores and scales: a bibliometric analysis of subject characteristics based on long-term citation observation. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 92-102.
15. Glänzel, W. (2010). "The application of characteristics scores and scales to the evaluation and ranking of scientific journals", forthcoming in proceedings of INFO 2010 (pp. 1-13). Cuba: Havana.
16. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56, 357-367.
17. Herranz, N. & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). "The end of the 'European Paradox'", working paper 11-27, Universidad Carlos III. http://hdl. handle. net/10016/12195.
18. Herranz, N. & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2012a). "Multiplicative and fractional strategies when journals are assigned to several sub-fields". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10. 1002/asi. 22629 (in press).
19. Herranz, N. & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2012b). "Sub-field normalization procedures in the multiplicative case: high- and low-impact citation indicators". Research Evaluation. doi: 10. 1093/reeval/rvs006 (in press).
20. King, D. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430, 311-316.
21. May, R. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275, 793-796.
22. National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010, appendix tables. Arlington: National Science Foundation.
23. Ravallion, M., & Wagstaff, A. (2011). On measuring scholarly influence by citations. Scientometrics, 88, 321-337.
24. Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., & Braun, T. (1987). A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics, 12, 267-292.
25. Seglen, P. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 628-638.
26. Tijssen, J. W., & van Leeuwen, T. (2003). "Bibliometric analysis of world science", extended technical annex to chapter 5 of the third European report on science and technology indicators. Luxembourg: Directorate-General for Research Office for Official Publications of the European Community.