Background:The objective of this research is to verify whether European projects on Active Aging (AA) and Elderly Quality of Life (Qol) funded by the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) produce an impact on literature similar to projects funded by the National Health Institute (NHI) of the United States on international literature using well-known bibliometric indicators. This effort may be useful in developing standardized and replicable procedures.Methods:Fifteen randomly selected projects on AA and Elderly Qol concluded in August 2017 and funded by FP7 were compared to similar projects funded by the US NHI with reference to papers published (Scopus and Scholar), papers published in Q1 journals, and the number of citations of the papers linked to the projects.Results:In all the indicators considered, the European projects showed no difference with the US NHI projects.Conclusions:The EU-funded AA and Qol Elderly projects have an impact on scientific literature comparable to projects funded in the United States by the NHI Agency.Our results are consistent with the data on general medical research, which indicates that, European research remains at a high level of competitiveness.In this experimental study, our methodology appeared to be convincing and reliable and it could be applied to the extent of the impact of more extensive research areas.Our research did not evaluate the relationship between funding required by research and scientific productivity.

Background: The use of bibliometric analysis to assess scientific productivity and impact is particularly relevant for EU funding programs. The objective of the present study is to assess the impact on scientific literature by focusing specifically on the cost-effectiveness of FP7 and NHI projects in the fields of AA and QoL, respectively. Methods: Twenty projects were randomly selected from the CORDIS database in accordance with the following criteria: funded by the FP7; accepted from 1st January 2007 to 31st December 2012; concluded by 31st August 2017; For each project selected, we determined: number of publications in Scopus and Google databases attributable to the project; number of papers published in Q1 quartile of the SCIMAGO rank; number of citations found in Scopus and Scholar Google; amount of funds allocated. Results: The study has confirmed the results of the previous one, namely that the number of publications and the number of citations per project on active ageing are similar in projects funded by the NHI in the United States and those funded by the FP7 in Europe. However, when it comes to cost-effectiveness, it results that European projects have a cost ten times higher than the Americans ones. Conclusion: Our study shows lower cost-effectiveness of FP7-European projects than the American-NIH on active aging. The results of this research, albeit with the limits already outlined, will have to be taken into consideration in the evaluative research of the future.

Objective This research note aimed to analyze the scientific productivity trends 2015–2019, focusing on the top 30 universities in Europe and United States and on the top 30 private companies—as classified in the SCImago Institutions Ranking. Our hypothesis is that private companies are gaining an increasingly prominent role in the research field, while academia is losing its predominance. Results From 2015 to 2019, all universities in Europe and the United States lost positions in the scientific production ranking, while private companies gained positions. These trends seem to be driven mainly by the scientific productivity sub-indicator “Innovation”. These data suggest that the role private companies will play in the future will not be limited to support research economically or influence it from “outside”. Private companies have taken a path that may lead them to directly control all stages of production/communication of knowledge, including research—a role once bestowed on universities. Our data, although preliminary, seem to suggest that, at present, academia risks losing its predominance in the research field. This scenario deserves attention because of the threats it may pose to the independence of research and its role in supporting human equity and sustainable health for all.