Might Europe one day again be a global scientific powerhouse? Analysis of ERC publications suggests it will not be possible without changes in research policy

Alonso Rodr\'iguez-Navarro; Ricardo Brito

arxiv: 1907.08975 · v1 · pith:J3QMYSLSnew · submitted 2019-07-21 · 💻 cs.DL

Might Europe one day again be a global scientific powerhouse? Analysis of ERC publications suggests it will not be possible without changes in research policy

Alonso Rodr\'iguez-Navarro , Ricardo Brito This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 18:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DL

keywords research performanceERC fundingcitation analysisEU researchscientific policyadvanced technologymedical research

0 comments

The pith

ERC-funded research from Germany, France, Italy and Spain remains less cited than equivalent work from the UK, Netherlands and Switzerland.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines publication performance in advanced technology and basic medical research across two European country groups that share geography and history. It finds that output from Germany, France, Italy and Spain falls below the world average and far behind output from the UK, Netherlands and Switzerland, and that European Research Council grants raise performance in both groups yet leave the first group still trailing. The authors conclude that the performance gap reflects an intrinsic feature of the research systems involved rather than simple funding levels. A reader would care because the paper ties this gap directly to the EU's long-term technological and economic prospects.

Core claim

Analysis of ERC publications in advanced technology and basic medical research shows that performance in Germany, France, Italy and Spain is much lower than in the UK, Netherlands and Switzerland and below the world average; ERC funding improves output in both sets of countries but ERC publications from the first group remain less cited than those from the second, supporting the claim that research performance in these and other EU countries is intrinsically low even when generously funded.

What carries the argument

Citation rates of ERC-funded publications used to compare research performance quality between the GFIS and UKNCH country groups.

If this is right

Structural changes in research policy within the EU and within most EU countries are required to raise performance.
Without such changes the technological and economic future of the EU will be limited by current research performance levels.
Generous funding alone cannot close the observed performance gap between the two country groups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same citation-gap pattern may appear in additional scientific fields not examined here.
Targeted reforms in institutional incentives or evaluation practices within GFIS countries could be tested as one route to closing the gap.
Direct comparison of non-ERC national funding streams across the same countries would help isolate the role of ERC selection effects.

Load-bearing premise

Observed differences in citation rates between the two country groups are assumed to reflect intrinsic differences in research system quality rather than language, institutional structures or field-specific citation habits.

What would settle it

A replication using a later cohort of ERC grants that finds citation rates for GFIS publications equal to or higher than those for UKNCH publications would falsify the intrinsic-low-performance claim.

read the original abstract

Numerous EU documents praise the excellence of EU research without empirical evidence and against academic studies. We investigated research performance in two fields of high socioeconomic importance, advanced technology and basic medical research, in two sets of European countries, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain (GFIS), and the UK, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (UKNCH). Despite historical and geographical proximity, research performance in GFIS is much lower than in UKNCH, and well below the world average. Funding from the European Research Council (ERC) greatly improves performance both in GFIS and UKNCH, but ERC-GFIS publications are less cited than ERC-UKNCH publications. We conclude that research performance in GFIS and in other EU countries is intrinsically low even when it is generously funded. The technological and economic future of the EU depends on improving research, which requires structural changes in research policy within the EU, and in most EU countries.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper shows citation gaps between GFIS and UKNCH countries persist even under ERC funding, but the leap to 'intrinsically low' performance ignores likely language and field biases.

read the letter

The main point is that ERC-funded papers from Germany, France, Italy, and Spain get fewer citations than those from the UK, Netherlands, and Switzerland in advanced technology and basic medical research, and the authors conclude this reflects intrinsic system quality that needs policy fixes across the EU. They also note ERC funding lifts output in both groups but does not close the gap. That comparison on ERC data is the concrete piece here. It adds a targeted look at how one major EU funding mechanism performs across country clusters, which is more specific than broad EU-wide averages in some earlier bibliometric work. The raw observation that GFIS ERC papers trail UKNCH ones is presented clearly enough from the abstract and title. The soft spot sits in the interpretation. The claim of intrinsic low performance requires that citation differences mainly track research quality rather than language, publication language mix, or field citation habits. GFIS countries produce more non-English work, which is known to draw lower citations independently of quality, and nothing in the provided abstract indicates field-normalized counts, English-only filters, or robustness checks for those factors. Without that, the intrinsic conclusion does not follow directly from the differentials. The paper is aimed at EU-level research policymakers and analysts tracking long-term competitiveness. A reader who wants numbers on ERC effects across these country groups can pull useful descriptive comparisons, but anyone needing causal claims or policy prescriptions will have to do extra work to check the controls. It deserves a serious referee to test the data sources, normalization steps, and sample details, because the topic touches real funding decisions even if the current framing overreaches. I would send it to review rather than desk reject, with the expectation that methods and language adjustments get addressed in revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper compares research performance in advanced technology and basic medical research between GFIS (Germany, France, Italy, Spain) and UKNCH (UK, Netherlands, Switzerland) countries. Using citation counts from ERC-funded and non-ERC publications, it reports substantially lower performance in GFIS countries relative to UKNCH and world averages. ERC funding improves outcomes in both groups, but ERC-GFIS papers remain less cited than ERC-UKNCH papers. The authors conclude that GFIS (and by extension other EU) research performance is intrinsically low even under generous funding and that structural policy changes are required for the EU to regain global standing.

Significance. If the central claim survives controls for language, field, and institutional confounders, the result would be policy-relevant for EU research strategy. The ERC comparison offers a useful quasi-experimental angle for isolating funding effects. However, the manuscript supplies no evidence of field-normalized citations, English-only restrictions, or robustness checks against known citation biases, so the 'intrinsic' interpretation remains untested on the supplied information.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract and conclusion: the claim that 'research performance in GFIS ... is intrinsically low even when it is generously funded' treats raw citation differentials as direct evidence of system quality. No indication is given that citations were field-normalized, language-adjusted, or restricted to English-language outputs. UKNCH countries publish almost exclusively in English while GFIS countries have substantial non-English output; both factors are known to depress citation counts independently of quality. This assumption is load-bearing for the policy conclusion.
[Methods] Methods and data description: the manuscript provides no information on the citation database used, sample sizes, selection criteria for 'advanced technology' and 'basic medical research' fields, or any statistical controls for confounders (language, historical traditions, institutional structures, or field-specific citation practices). Without these details the observed GFIS–UKNCH gap cannot be attributed to intrinsic system quality rather than measurement artifacts.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract cites 'numerous EU documents' praising excellence 'without empirical evidence' but supplies no references to those documents or to the 'academic studies' it claims contradict them.
[Abstract] Terminology: 'GFIS' and 'UKNCH' are introduced without an explicit list of the countries they comprise on first use.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important limitations in the presentation and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity, add missing methodological details, and qualify our conclusions where the evidence is not sufficient to support the original phrasing.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and conclusion: the claim that 'research performance in GFIS ... is intrinsically low even when it is generously funded' treats raw citation differentials as direct evidence of system quality. No indication is given that citations were field-normalized, language-adjusted, or restricted to English-language outputs. UKNCH countries publish almost exclusively in English while GFIS countries have substantial non-English output; both factors are known to depress citation counts independently of quality. This assumption is load-bearing for the policy conclusion.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not indicate field normalization, language adjustment, or restriction to English-language outputs, and that this is a substantive limitation for the 'intrinsically low' claim. Our analysis used raw citation counts within the two selected fields. The ERC comparison was intended to hold funding constant at a high level, but we did not apply the additional controls noted. In the revision we will (1) add explicit discussion of language and field biases as potential confounders, (2) include, where feasible, a robustness check limited to English-language publications, and (3) revise the abstract and conclusion to state that the persistent gap is observed even under ERC funding but cannot be definitively attributed to intrinsic system quality without those controls. We will also soften the policy language accordingly. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] Methods and data description: the manuscript provides no information on the citation database used, sample sizes, selection criteria for 'advanced technology' and 'basic medical research' fields, or any statistical controls for confounders (language, historical traditions, institutional structures, or field-specific citation practices). Without these details the observed GFIS–UKNCH gap cannot be attributed to intrinsic system quality rather than measurement artifacts.

Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the Methods section lacks these details. The supplied manuscript text does not specify the citation database, report sample sizes, describe exact field-selection criteria beyond the field names, or apply statistical controls for the listed confounders. In the revised version we will expand the Methods section to include the data source, publication counts by group and field, the operational definition of the two research areas, and a dedicated subsection discussing potential measurement artifacts with any available robustness checks. This will allow readers to evaluate whether the reported gap survives these considerations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical citation comparison with no derivations or self-referential fits

full rationale

The paper is an empirical study comparing raw and ERC-funded citation rates between GFIS and UKNCH country groups in two fields. The abstract and described analysis contain no equations, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no uniqueness theorems, and no self-citation chains that bear the central claim. Observed citation differentials are presented directly as evidence for the 'intrinsically low' conclusion rather than derived from any prior result by construction. This is a standard data-driven argument whose validity can be assessed against external benchmarks (field normalization, language effects) without internal circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No methodological details are available from the abstract, so no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5702 in / 1065 out tokens · 34966 ms · 2026-05-24T18:23:54.909795+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

European paradox,

Introduction Compelling evidence from academic studies demonstrates the weakness of European research (Albarrán et al. 2010; Bauwens et al. 2011; Bonaccorsi 2007; Bonaccorsi et al. 2017a; Dosi et al. 2006; Herranz and Ruiz-Castillo 2013; Rodriguez-Navarro and Narin 2018; Rodríguez-Navarro and Brito 2018b), especially in fields that are at the forefront of...

work page 2010
[2]

Europe is a global scientific powerhouse

begins by describing EU research as in the European paradox: “When looking ahead to the future of Europe in a globalising world, the contrast is striking between Europe’s comparative advantage in producing knowledge and its comparative disadvantage in turning that knowledge into innovation and growth;” the next sentence is a motto “Europe is a global scie...

work page 2021
[3]

The EU is a global research powerhouse responsible for one-fifth of all R&D investments worldwide

and keep the EU at the forefront of global research and innovation” (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4041_en.htm, accessed on 7 March, 2019). Many examples of this type demonstrate that the EC is not 2 aware that research in the EU is weak. If the EU research policy is based on these convictions, it is likely that the EU research weakness will ...

work page 2019
[4]

The decline of research in some but not in all European countries The most remarkable characteristic of research in Europe is that at the beginning of the twentieth century, Europe (excluding Russia) was not only a global scientific powerhouse (Davies 1997), but the only global scientific powerhouse attending to the number of Nobel prizes (Heinze et al. 2...

work page 1997
[5]

normal” and “revolutionary

Research performance can be robustly measured Discrepancies between different types of research assessment have their roots in the difficulties of this type of assessment. These difficulties explain why, for over 20 years, EU research policy has been based on the wrong diagnoses of the performance of the EU research system (Dosi et al. 2006). Bibliometric...

work page 2006
[6]

wrong diagnosis and misguided policies

Rationale and design of this study Assuming that, in general terms, the weak research performance of the EU has been demonstrated (Albarrán et al. 2010; Bauwens et al. 2011; Bonaccorsi 2007; Bonaccorsi et al. 2017a; Dosi et al. 2006; Herranz and Ruiz-Castillo 2013; Rodriguez-Navarro and Narin 2018; Rodríguez-Navarro and Brito 2018b), the first aim of this...

work page 2010
[7]

the way the money is used is probably as critical as the amount of money itself

that have characterized EU research for many years. For example, the EU research policy of increasing investments to reach 3% GDP (European Commission 2010a, 2018a) might not result in the expected improvement were the main causes of the weak performance not modified by higher investments. In fact, “the way the money is used is probably as critical as the...

work page 2011
[8]

Analyses based on lognormal distributions Most results in this study were obtained through the use of the ep index, which is based on analysis of the distribution of local publications among global publications (Rodríguez-Navarro and Brito 2019b). Citation distributions are lognormal (Rodríguez-Navarro and Brito 2018a; Viiu 2018; and references therein) a...

work page 2018
[9]

Because the ERC program started in 2007, our citation analyses were performed for the years 2011–2014

Some countries or sets of countries were analyzed on different days but each analysis on a different day was complete, including world and country citation distributions. Because the ERC program started in 2007, our citation analyses were performed for the years 2011–2014. To calculate the μ and σ parameters of lognormal distributions of citations of MIT ...

work page 2007
[10]

Results 9.1. General appraisal of EU research performance Before going into more detail, we obtained a general appraisal of the research performance in the EU from Science & Engineering Indicators, published by the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation (National Science Board 2016, 2018). Among other indicators they report the proporti...

work page 2016
[11]

Other Life Sciences

Although maximum differences between USA and EU research occur in topics that are at the forefront of technological knowledge (Bonaccorsi 2007; Rodriguez-Navarro and Narin 2018; Sachwald 2015), the National Science Board data enables a general appraisal of research performances in the EU and the USA. Table 1 records the ep index values in all these 104 ca...

work page 2007
[12]

was considerably lower in GFIS than in 9 UKNCH—3.6% versus 8.5% and 1.9% versus 3.8% in TECH and BIO-MED, respectively—which once more denotes the lower research competitiveness of GFIS. Interestingly, despite the apparently more stringent selection by ERC funding in GFIS than in UKNCH, the ep index had lower values for ERC-GFIS than for ERC-UKNCH papers,...

work page 2007
[13]

In the case of GFIS the ep index values varies around 0.15

In BIO-MED, the ep index values in ERC-UKNCH publications varies from 0.15 to 0.28, always below those of MIT, which varies from 0.23 to 0.33. In the case of GFIS the ep index values varies around 0.15. In both ERC-UKNCH and MIT publications, there was a clear increase in the ep index from 2011 to 2014, while it remained constant in the case of ERC-GFIS p...

work page 2011
[14]

Number of grants from the European Research Council (ERC) awarded to Germany, France, Italy, and Spain (GFIS) and to the UK, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (UKNCH) from 2007 to

work page 2007
[15]

Source: https://erc.europa.eu/, accessed 9 April 2019; Proof of Concept grants were not included Fig

work page 2019
[16]

Number of ERC publications in rapid evolving physical and chemical technologies (TECH) and in biotechnological and basic medical research (BIO-MED) from Germany, France, Italy, and Spain (GFIS), and from the UK, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (UKNCH) in years 2011−2018 10 ERC-funded publications was continuously increasing from 2011 to 2014 (Fig

work page 2011
[17]

while the MIT papers remained constant around 550 (results not shown). 9.4. Calculations based on the lognormal distributions: ERC-GFIS versus MIT publications A way of comparing the research performances of two countries or institutions is by comparing the probabilities of publishing very highly cited papers. These probabilities can be calculated from th...

work page 2011
[18]

Discussion 10.1. Wrong diagnoses and misguided policies 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 e(p) index Year 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year GFIS UKNCH MIT Fig

work page 2010
[19]

Physical and chemical technologies (TECH; left panel) and biotechnology and basic medical research (BIO-MED; right panel)

Values of the e(p) index in years 2011−2014 of the ERC funded publications from Germany, France, Italy, and Spain (GFIS) and the UK, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (UKNCH); and publications from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Physical and chemical technologies (TECH; left panel) and biotechnology and basic medical research (BIO-MED; ri...

work page 2011
[20]

Other Life Sciences

As discussed above (Section 9.1), according to the ep index values (Table 1), the advantage of the USA over the EU is high. Only in the case of “Other Life Sciences” was the EU slightly ahead of, or on par with, the USA. The top 0.01% of most cited papers reasonably represents the percentile where most breakthrough and landmark publications concentrate (B...

work page 2018
[21]

the most competitive knowledge based economy in the world by 2010

show that the EU is not a global scientific powerhouse. If current research policy continues to be based on the same illusory, wrong diagnoses of scientific excellence that have oriented the EU research policy for more than 20 years, then EU research will not correct its weak position. Even worse, the EU had only two relevant competitors 20 years ago, the...

work page 2000
[22]

This resounding failure should be a lesson that those responsible for the EU research policy should learn. 10.2. Research in the EU is heterogeneous The EU is not a homogeneous set of countries as regards research (Bauwens et al. 2011; Leydesdorff et al. 2014); some countries are more efficient and some less efficient than the global average. As shown in ...

work page 2011
[23]

in just a few years, has become the point of reference for excellent frontier research in Europe

therefore reveals the that the research performance of the EU in the areas that support the knowledge-based economy is worse than in wide scientific areas (ep index ≈ 0.1; Table 1). This scenario is absolutely baffling. It is startling that some of the EU’s weakest research is precisely in the research fields that are crucial for the economy. Many EC docu...

work page 2014
[24]

although a high level of efficiency can be achieved with incremental innovation performance, radical innovation performance is needed to avoid generating competence traps

and that “although a high level of efficiency can be achieved with incremental innovation performance, radical innovation performance is needed to avoid generating competence traps” (Forés and Camison 2015, p. 831). It is worth noting that ERC-funded research is addressed to produce breakthrough papers and that many of the top 0.01% of the globally most c...

work page 2015
[25]

This possibility, however, should not conceal the undesirable consequences of performing research with low ep index values

than at the forefront of knowledge. This possibility, however, should not conceal the undesirable consequences of performing research with low ep index values. First, because a low ep index affects the performance of the whole research system and is not linked to any specific citation level, which includes the low-cited papers that support incremental inn...

work page 2010
[26]

2017), especially in fast evolving technologies (Kostoff et al

and might reach this target in the near future because China is developing a strong research system (Liu et al. 2017), especially in fast evolving technologies (Kostoff et al. 2007; Rodriguez-Navarro and Narin 2018). Copying China’s strategy might be very effective in the EU and it is worth noting that China has been developing its research system de novo...

work page 2017
[27]

The problem is not only investments, however, because the UK and the Netherlands invest less in research than Germany and France (European Commission 2010c, p

that are leading to the dismantling of the research system suggest that Spanish governments see research as a dispensable social activity (Rodriguez-Navarro and Narin 2018). The problem is not only investments, however, because the UK and the Netherlands invest less in research than Germany and France (European Commission 2010c, p. 9), but achieve a much ...

work page 2018
[28]

does not wish to usurp national authorities in the management and implementation of these activities

might lead to a belief that it is not necessary to increase research. The consequences of this scenario are important because around 85% of EU public investments in research and innovation come from national funding (European Commission 2018a) and the EU “does not wish to usurp national authorities in the management and implementation of these activities”...

work page 2017
[29]

show that it considers research to be a dispensable activity. The answer to the question of why the German and Spanish ep index values in technological research are, nonetheless, not too dissimilar might shed light on the general problems of GFIS regarding excellence in research. A likely possibility is that the difficulties that GFIS researchers experien...

work page 2011
[30]

Each country should take care of its own university system, but the results should be controlled by the EC, as in the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact

might be of little help. Each country should take care of its own university system, but the results should be controlled by the EC, as in the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact. If the EU genuinely wants to recover its past status as global scientific powerhouse and to maintain a competitive, knowledge-based economy in the near future, then strict measures s...

work page 2000
[31]

Conclusions Our study distinguishes research success between the more competitive (UKNCH) and less competitive (GFIS) countries. It is surprising that among advanced countries as physically close as the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, and France, it is the Netherlands and Switzerland that are highly competitive, while Germany and France are much less c...

work page arXiv 2000
[32]

--- (2010b), 'Commission staff working document

A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth', in European Commission (ed.), COM(2010) 2020 final. --- (2010b), 'Commission staff working document. Lisbon Strategy eveluation document', SEC(2010) 114 final. --- (2010c), 'Commission staff working document. Lisbon Strategy evaluation document', in European-Commission (ed.), SEC(2010) 114 final. 17...

work page 2010
[33]

European Paradox

Strengthening the foundations for Europe's future (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union). --- (2018d), 'EU Research and Innovation Success Stories', in European-Commission (ed.). --- (2018e), 'EU funding for reserach and innovation 2021-2027', (European Union). European Parliament (2017), EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovatio...

work page 2021
[34]

Rodriguez-Navarro, A and Narin, F (2018), 'European paradox or delusion-Are European science and economy outdated?', Science and Public Policy, 45, 14-23. Rodríguez-Navarro, A (2009), 'Sound research, unimportant discoveries: Research, universities, and formal evaluation of research in Spain', Journal of the American Society for information Science and Te...

work page arXiv 2018
[35]

Viiu, G-A (2018), 'The lognormal distribution explains the remarkable pattern documented by characteristic scores and scales in scientometrics', Journal of Informetrics, 12, 401-15

work page 2018

[1] [1]

European paradox,

Introduction Compelling evidence from academic studies demonstrates the weakness of European research (Albarrán et al. 2010; Bauwens et al. 2011; Bonaccorsi 2007; Bonaccorsi et al. 2017a; Dosi et al. 2006; Herranz and Ruiz-Castillo 2013; Rodriguez-Navarro and Narin 2018; Rodríguez-Navarro and Brito 2018b), especially in fields that are at the forefront of...

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Europe is a global scientific powerhouse

begins by describing EU research as in the European paradox: “When looking ahead to the future of Europe in a globalising world, the contrast is striking between Europe’s comparative advantage in producing knowledge and its comparative disadvantage in turning that knowledge into innovation and growth;” the next sentence is a motto “Europe is a global scie...

work page 2021

[3] [3]

The EU is a global research powerhouse responsible for one-fifth of all R&D investments worldwide

and keep the EU at the forefront of global research and innovation” (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4041_en.htm, accessed on 7 March, 2019). Many examples of this type demonstrate that the EC is not 2 aware that research in the EU is weak. If the EU research policy is based on these convictions, it is likely that the EU research weakness will ...

work page 2019

[4] [4]

The decline of research in some but not in all European countries The most remarkable characteristic of research in Europe is that at the beginning of the twentieth century, Europe (excluding Russia) was not only a global scientific powerhouse (Davies 1997), but the only global scientific powerhouse attending to the number of Nobel prizes (Heinze et al. 2...

work page 1997

[5] [5]

normal” and “revolutionary

Research performance can be robustly measured Discrepancies between different types of research assessment have their roots in the difficulties of this type of assessment. These difficulties explain why, for over 20 years, EU research policy has been based on the wrong diagnoses of the performance of the EU research system (Dosi et al. 2006). Bibliometric...

work page 2006

[6] [6]

wrong diagnosis and misguided policies

Rationale and design of this study Assuming that, in general terms, the weak research performance of the EU has been demonstrated (Albarrán et al. 2010; Bauwens et al. 2011; Bonaccorsi 2007; Bonaccorsi et al. 2017a; Dosi et al. 2006; Herranz and Ruiz-Castillo 2013; Rodriguez-Navarro and Narin 2018; Rodríguez-Navarro and Brito 2018b), the first aim of this...

work page 2010

[7] [7]

the way the money is used is probably as critical as the amount of money itself

that have characterized EU research for many years. For example, the EU research policy of increasing investments to reach 3% GDP (European Commission 2010a, 2018a) might not result in the expected improvement were the main causes of the weak performance not modified by higher investments. In fact, “the way the money is used is probably as critical as the...

work page 2011

[8] [8]

Analyses based on lognormal distributions Most results in this study were obtained through the use of the ep index, which is based on analysis of the distribution of local publications among global publications (Rodríguez-Navarro and Brito 2019b). Citation distributions are lognormal (Rodríguez-Navarro and Brito 2018a; Viiu 2018; and references therein) a...

work page 2018

[9] [9]

Because the ERC program started in 2007, our citation analyses were performed for the years 2011–2014

Some countries or sets of countries were analyzed on different days but each analysis on a different day was complete, including world and country citation distributions. Because the ERC program started in 2007, our citation analyses were performed for the years 2011–2014. To calculate the μ and σ parameters of lognormal distributions of citations of MIT ...

work page 2007

[10] [10]

Results 9.1. General appraisal of EU research performance Before going into more detail, we obtained a general appraisal of the research performance in the EU from Science & Engineering Indicators, published by the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation (National Science Board 2016, 2018). Among other indicators they report the proporti...

work page 2016

[11] [11]

Other Life Sciences

Although maximum differences between USA and EU research occur in topics that are at the forefront of technological knowledge (Bonaccorsi 2007; Rodriguez-Navarro and Narin 2018; Sachwald 2015), the National Science Board data enables a general appraisal of research performances in the EU and the USA. Table 1 records the ep index values in all these 104 ca...

work page 2007

[12] [12]

was considerably lower in GFIS than in 9 UKNCH—3.6% versus 8.5% and 1.9% versus 3.8% in TECH and BIO-MED, respectively—which once more denotes the lower research competitiveness of GFIS. Interestingly, despite the apparently more stringent selection by ERC funding in GFIS than in UKNCH, the ep index had lower values for ERC-GFIS than for ERC-UKNCH papers,...

work page 2007

[13] [13]

In the case of GFIS the ep index values varies around 0.15

In BIO-MED, the ep index values in ERC-UKNCH publications varies from 0.15 to 0.28, always below those of MIT, which varies from 0.23 to 0.33. In the case of GFIS the ep index values varies around 0.15. In both ERC-UKNCH and MIT publications, there was a clear increase in the ep index from 2011 to 2014, while it remained constant in the case of ERC-GFIS p...

work page 2011

[14] [14]

Number of grants from the European Research Council (ERC) awarded to Germany, France, Italy, and Spain (GFIS) and to the UK, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (UKNCH) from 2007 to

work page 2007

[15] [15]

Source: https://erc.europa.eu/, accessed 9 April 2019; Proof of Concept grants were not included Fig

work page 2019

[16] [16]

Number of ERC publications in rapid evolving physical and chemical technologies (TECH) and in biotechnological and basic medical research (BIO-MED) from Germany, France, Italy, and Spain (GFIS), and from the UK, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (UKNCH) in years 2011−2018 10 ERC-funded publications was continuously increasing from 2011 to 2014 (Fig

work page 2011

[17] [17]

while the MIT papers remained constant around 550 (results not shown). 9.4. Calculations based on the lognormal distributions: ERC-GFIS versus MIT publications A way of comparing the research performances of two countries or institutions is by comparing the probabilities of publishing very highly cited papers. These probabilities can be calculated from th...

work page 2011

[18] [18]

Discussion 10.1. Wrong diagnoses and misguided policies 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 e(p) index Year 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year GFIS UKNCH MIT Fig

work page 2010

[19] [19]

Physical and chemical technologies (TECH; left panel) and biotechnology and basic medical research (BIO-MED; right panel)

Values of the e(p) index in years 2011−2014 of the ERC funded publications from Germany, France, Italy, and Spain (GFIS) and the UK, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (UKNCH); and publications from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Physical and chemical technologies (TECH; left panel) and biotechnology and basic medical research (BIO-MED; ri...

work page 2011

[20] [20]

Other Life Sciences

As discussed above (Section 9.1), according to the ep index values (Table 1), the advantage of the USA over the EU is high. Only in the case of “Other Life Sciences” was the EU slightly ahead of, or on par with, the USA. The top 0.01% of most cited papers reasonably represents the percentile where most breakthrough and landmark publications concentrate (B...

work page 2018

[21] [21]

the most competitive knowledge based economy in the world by 2010

show that the EU is not a global scientific powerhouse. If current research policy continues to be based on the same illusory, wrong diagnoses of scientific excellence that have oriented the EU research policy for more than 20 years, then EU research will not correct its weak position. Even worse, the EU had only two relevant competitors 20 years ago, the...

work page 2000

[22] [22]

This resounding failure should be a lesson that those responsible for the EU research policy should learn. 10.2. Research in the EU is heterogeneous The EU is not a homogeneous set of countries as regards research (Bauwens et al. 2011; Leydesdorff et al. 2014); some countries are more efficient and some less efficient than the global average. As shown in ...

work page 2011

[23] [23]

in just a few years, has become the point of reference for excellent frontier research in Europe

therefore reveals the that the research performance of the EU in the areas that support the knowledge-based economy is worse than in wide scientific areas (ep index ≈ 0.1; Table 1). This scenario is absolutely baffling. It is startling that some of the EU’s weakest research is precisely in the research fields that are crucial for the economy. Many EC docu...

work page 2014

[24] [24]

although a high level of efficiency can be achieved with incremental innovation performance, radical innovation performance is needed to avoid generating competence traps

and that “although a high level of efficiency can be achieved with incremental innovation performance, radical innovation performance is needed to avoid generating competence traps” (Forés and Camison 2015, p. 831). It is worth noting that ERC-funded research is addressed to produce breakthrough papers and that many of the top 0.01% of the globally most c...

work page 2015

[25] [25]

This possibility, however, should not conceal the undesirable consequences of performing research with low ep index values

than at the forefront of knowledge. This possibility, however, should not conceal the undesirable consequences of performing research with low ep index values. First, because a low ep index affects the performance of the whole research system and is not linked to any specific citation level, which includes the low-cited papers that support incremental inn...

work page 2010

[26] [26]

2017), especially in fast evolving technologies (Kostoff et al

and might reach this target in the near future because China is developing a strong research system (Liu et al. 2017), especially in fast evolving technologies (Kostoff et al. 2007; Rodriguez-Navarro and Narin 2018). Copying China’s strategy might be very effective in the EU and it is worth noting that China has been developing its research system de novo...

work page 2017

[27] [27]

The problem is not only investments, however, because the UK and the Netherlands invest less in research than Germany and France (European Commission 2010c, p

that are leading to the dismantling of the research system suggest that Spanish governments see research as a dispensable social activity (Rodriguez-Navarro and Narin 2018). The problem is not only investments, however, because the UK and the Netherlands invest less in research than Germany and France (European Commission 2010c, p. 9), but achieve a much ...

work page 2018

[28] [28]

does not wish to usurp national authorities in the management and implementation of these activities

might lead to a belief that it is not necessary to increase research. The consequences of this scenario are important because around 85% of EU public investments in research and innovation come from national funding (European Commission 2018a) and the EU “does not wish to usurp national authorities in the management and implementation of these activities”...

work page 2017

[29] [29]

show that it considers research to be a dispensable activity. The answer to the question of why the German and Spanish ep index values in technological research are, nonetheless, not too dissimilar might shed light on the general problems of GFIS regarding excellence in research. A likely possibility is that the difficulties that GFIS researchers experien...

work page 2011

[30] [30]

Each country should take care of its own university system, but the results should be controlled by the EC, as in the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact

might be of little help. Each country should take care of its own university system, but the results should be controlled by the EC, as in the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact. If the EU genuinely wants to recover its past status as global scientific powerhouse and to maintain a competitive, knowledge-based economy in the near future, then strict measures s...

work page 2000

[31] [31]

Conclusions Our study distinguishes research success between the more competitive (UKNCH) and less competitive (GFIS) countries. It is surprising that among advanced countries as physically close as the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, and France, it is the Netherlands and Switzerland that are highly competitive, while Germany and France are much less c...

work page arXiv 2000

[32] [32]

--- (2010b), 'Commission staff working document

A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth', in European Commission (ed.), COM(2010) 2020 final. --- (2010b), 'Commission staff working document. Lisbon Strategy eveluation document', SEC(2010) 114 final. --- (2010c), 'Commission staff working document. Lisbon Strategy evaluation document', in European-Commission (ed.), SEC(2010) 114 final. 17...

work page 2010

[33] [33]

European Paradox

Strengthening the foundations for Europe's future (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union). --- (2018d), 'EU Research and Innovation Success Stories', in European-Commission (ed.). --- (2018e), 'EU funding for reserach and innovation 2021-2027', (European Union). European Parliament (2017), EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovatio...

work page 2021

[34] [34]

Rodriguez-Navarro, A and Narin, F (2018), 'European paradox or delusion-Are European science and economy outdated?', Science and Public Policy, 45, 14-23. Rodríguez-Navarro, A (2009), 'Sound research, unimportant discoveries: Research, universities, and formal evaluation of research in Spain', Journal of the American Society for information Science and Te...

work page arXiv 2018

[35] [35]

Viiu, G-A (2018), 'The lognormal distribution explains the remarkable pattern documented by characteristic scores and scales in scientometrics', Journal of Informetrics, 12, 401-15

work page 2018