The end of the “European Paradox”

Herranz, Neus; Ruiz‐Castillo, Javier

doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0865-8

Cited by 32 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results are confirmed using mean citation rates instead of citation distributions, although the gap between the USA and Europe is smaller in this case (Albarrán, Ortuño, & Ruiz-Castillo, 2011c). Herranz and Ruiz-Castillo (2013) further refine the analysis by comparing the citation performance of the USA and EU in 219 subfields instead of 22 general scientific fields. They find that on this finegrained level the USA outperforms the EU in 189 out of 219 subfields.…”

Section: World Regions and Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Scientometrics and Scholarly Impact: A Review of Recent Studies, Tools, and Methods

Frenken

Hoekman

2014

Measuring Scholarly Impact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previously, we proposed a research program to analyze spatial aspects of the science system which we called "spatial scientometrics" (Frenken, Hardeman, & Hoekman, 2009). The aim of this chapter is to systematically review recent (post-2008) contributions to spatial scientometrics on the basis of a standardized literature search. We focus our review on contributions addressing spatial aspects of scholarly impact, particularly, the spatial distribution of publication and citation impact, and the effect of spatial biases in collaboration and mobility on citation impact. We also discuss recent dedicated tools and methods for analysis and visualization of spatial scientometric data. We end with reflections about future research avenues.

show abstract

Section: World Regions and Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Scientometrics and Scholarly Impact: A Review of Recent Studies, Tools, and Methods

Frenken

Hoekman

2014

Measuring Scholarly Impact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As indicated in our companion paper Herranz and Ruiz-Castillo (2011b), the present analysis might be extended in rather obvious directions towards specific countries within the EU and the RW, and even individual research centers. It would be important to analyze domestic and internationally co-authored articles separately.…”

Section: Conclusion and Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Sub-field normalization in the multiplicative case: High- and low-impact citation indicators

Herranz

Ruiz‐Castillo

2012

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses high-and low-impact citation indicators for the evaluation of the citation performance of research units at different aggregate levels. To solve the problem of the assignment of individual articles to multiple sub-fields, it follows a multiplicative strategy according to which each paper is wholly counted as many times as necessary in the several categories to which it is assigned at each aggregation level. To control for wide differences in citation practices at the lowest level of aggregation, we apply a novel sub-field normalization procedure in the multiplicative case. The methodology is applied to a partition of the world into three geographical areas: the U.S., the European Union (EU), and the Rest of the World. The main findings are the following two. (i) Although normalization does not systematically bias the results against any area, it reduces the U.S./EU highimpact gap in the all-sciences case by a non-negligible 14.4%. (ii) The dominance of the U.S. over the EU in the basic and applied research published in the periodical literature is almost universal at all aggregation levels. From the high-impact perspective, for example, the U.S. is ahead of the EU in 77 out of 80 disciplines, and all of 20 fields. For all sciences as a whole, the U.S. high-impact indicator is 61% greater than that of the EU.

show abstract

“…judging from citation impact per publication, the dominance of the U.S. over the EU is almost universal at different aggregation levels (Albarrán et al, 2011a, andHerranz andRuiz-Castillo, 2013).…”

Section: Research Output Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%