Scientific publication performance in post-communist countries: still lagging far behind

Jurajda, Štěpán; Kozubek, Stanislav; Münich, Daniel; źKoda, Samuel

doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2389-8

Cited by 38 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finding Russia in the 95th position is hardly a surprise because its failure to modernize scientific research has been repeatedly verified by other indicators of scientific excellence (Adams & King, 2010;Markusova et al, 2018;Markusova, Ivanov, et al, 2009;Markusova, Jansz, et al, 2009). Although our findings confirmed earlier research that a communist past may have a long-term detrimental effect on countries' scientific success (Jurajda et al, 2017;Kozak et al, 2015), this did not prevent Georgia (3), Estonia (8), and Armenia (18) from occupying relatively high positions in the HQSI ranking.…”

Section: Do the Hqsi Rankings Make Sense?supporting

confidence: 83%

Factors Predicting the Scientific Wealth of Nations

Allïk

Lauk

Realo

2020

Cross-Cultural Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that economic affluence is one of the main predictors of the scientific wealth of nations. Yet, the link is not as straightforward as is often presented. First, only a limited set of relatively affluent countries is usually studied. Second, there are differences between equally rich countries in their scientific success. The main aim of the present study is to find out which factors can enhance or suppress the effect of the economic wealth of countries on their scientific success, as measured by the High Quality Science Index ( HQSI). The HQSI is a composite indicator of scientific wealth, which in equal parts considers the mean citation rate per paper and the percentage of papers that have reached the top 1% of citations in the Essential Science Indicators ( ESI; Clarivate Analytics) database during the 11-year period from 2008 to 2018. Our results show that a high position in the ranking of countries on the HQSI can be achieved not only by increasing the number of high-quality papers but also by reducing the number of papers that are able to pass ESI thresholds but are of lower quality. The HQSI was positively and significantly correlated with the countries’ economic indicators (as measured by gross national income and Research and Development expenditure as a percentage from GDP), but these correlations became insignificant when other societal factors were controlled for. Overall, our findings indicate that it is small and well-governed countries with a long-standing democratic past that seem to be more efficient in translating economic wealth into high-quality science.

show abstract

Section: Do the Hqsi Rankings Make Sense?supporting

confidence: 83%

Factors Predicting the Scientific Wealth of Nations

Allïk

Lauk

Realo

2020

Cross-Cultural Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A well-known case that illustrates the idea above is the set of European post-communist countries whose research policy was to increase the number of their research products rather than enhancing the quality of them. According to Jurajda et al (2017) such policy distracted their limited resources away from internationally more competitive research. Increasing the number of scientific papers in different disciplines is undoubtedly a necessary step for achieving the required diversification that leads nations to scientific competitiveness worldwide, but this diversification works with a large number of citations and a higher effort on R&D projects that require a higher percentage expense concerning countries GDP (Suarez 2014;Cimini et al 2014;Jaffe 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can scientific productivity impact the economic complexity of countries?

Laverde-Rojas

Correa

2019

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The so-called index of economic complexity, based on nations' exports, was initially proposed as an alternative to traditional macroeconomic metrics just as the scientific productivity of countries which has also been deemed as a better predictor of economic growth. Adequate scrutiny to the relationship between these two factors, however, remains little explored. This paper aims to examine the relationship between economic complexity and scientific production while identifying which areas of knowledge hold to this relationship best. By applying panel data techniques to a sample of 91 countries between 2003 and 2014, we found that scientific productivity in basic sciences and engineering has a significant positive effect on the economic complexity of countries. This relationship, however, only remains stable for high-income countries, where university-industry-government capabilities interact to stimulate and generate innovation and strategies for economic growth of firms.

show abstract

“…Even after 25 years that have passed from the collapse of the Soviet Union, most post-communist countries are still lagging behind their EU counterparts in the quality of science they produce (Jurajda et al 2017, Kozak, Bornmann, and Leydesdorff 2015, Must 2006, Pajic 2015, Vinkler 2008. If there is one postcommunist country that has managed to escape the curse of the past, it is Estonia occupying the highest position in rankings among all post-communist countries (Allik 2003(Allik , 2008(Allik , 2011(Allik , 2015(Allik , 2017.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was observed that countries differ in their ability to transform scientific research into immediate economic return (Vinkler, 2008). Besides money, achieving scientific excellence also requires reasonable science policies, research ethos, and even a culture that supports discovery of new ideas (Jurajda Kozubek, Munich, and Skoda 2017, Moed 2005, Ntuli, Inglesi-Lotz, Chang, and Pouris 2015, van Leeuwen and Moed 2012, van Leeuwen, Visser, Moed, Nederhof, and van Raan 2003.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Puzzle of Estonian Science: How to Explain Unexpected Rise of the Scientific Impact

Lauk¹,

Allïk²

2018

Trames

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Only sufficient economic wealth can produce science with the highest quality. However, there is room for many intervening factors, which can moderate the process of how money invested into research transforms into a bibliometrically measurable outcome. In this paper, based on the latest update of the Essential Science Indicators (ESI), covering the period 2007-2017, we analyze the progress of Estonian science against the background less successful neighbors, Latvia and Lithuania, in the pursuit of scientific excellence. Estonia improved the impact of scientific papers by eleven positions occupying the 17th position in the world-ranking list of countries/territories, sandwiched between France and Israel who both have approximately two times larger DGP per capita to say nothing about 68 and 12 Nobel Prize winners respectively. By the percentage of papers reaching the topcited category, Estonia occupies the 7th position of the most successful nations. The fact that Estonian papers are cited 30% more frequently than papers recorded by ESI in general is a puzzle because Estonia is spending only about 0.8% of its GDP on the R&D with a dropping tendency during the last three years. Factors that could moderate transformation of the input money into scientific output are discussed.

show abstract

Scientific publication performance in post-communist countries: still lagging far behind

Cited by 38 publications

References 27 publications

Factors Predicting the Scientific Wealth of Nations

Factors Predicting the Scientific Wealth of Nations

Can scientific productivity impact the economic complexity of countries?

A Puzzle of Estonian Science: How to Explain Unexpected Rise of the Scientific Impact

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About