Why the US lost leadership in the scientific paper indicator,
and why it is expected to soon lose in other output
indicators*
R. D. Shelton
WTEC, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203
shelton@wtec.org
Abstract
The poor performance of the US scientific publication output indicator can best be
explained by examination of three decades. In the 1990s the US curve was passed by
the EU one. In the 2000s the shares of both were decreased by the rise of China,
which is likely to pass both in the 2010s.
In the 1990s, US R&D funding shifted from 1/2 government vs. 1/2 industry, to 1/3
vs. 2/3. Since regression shows that industry-funded R&D produces far fewer papers,
US paper production sagged. The EU also spends more on R&D that produces
papers, particularly in higher education, making it the world leader (Foland & Shelton
2010).
In the decade of the 2000s, China came from nowhere to challenge the world leaders
by rapidly increasing its R&D investment. A mathematical model shows that world
R&D investment share is the driver for scientific publication share, accounting for the
relative decline of the West. (Shelton 2006)
These two phenomena explain the American Paradox: the decline of US paper share
as it greatly increased its overall R&D investment. The PRC curve is currently far
below those of the US and EU. However, forecasts based on models predict that
China will pass both to lead the world in the decade of the 2010s. (Leydesdorff 1990)
(Leydesdorf & Wagner 2009a and 2009b) (Shelton & Foland 2010).
Similar data for other output indicators (patents, PhDs grads in science and
engineering, and high-tech market share) show continuing decline of the West with
the rise of China. Models also permit forecasts for these indicators. (Shelton &
Leydesdorff 2011) (Shelton 2011).
*Funding from NSF coop agreement ENG-0844639 is appreciated. The content is the
opinion of the author.
Selected References
Foland, P & Shelton RD (2010) Why is Europe so efficient at producing scientific papers,
and does this explain the European Paradox? 11th International Conference on S&T
Indicators, Leiden, Sept. 2010.
Leydesdorff, L. (1990). The prediction of science indicators using information theory.
Scientometrics 19, 297-324.
Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, CS. (2009a. Macro-level indicators of the relations between
research funding and research output. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 353-362.
Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, CS. (2009b) Is the United States losing ground in science? A
global perspective on the world science system Scientometrics, 78(1), 23-36.
Shelton, RD., (2008), Relations between national research investment and publication
output: Application to an American paradox. Scientometrics 74(2), 191-205.
Shelton, RD. & Foland, P. (2010) The race for world leadership of science and
technology: Status and forecasts. Science Focus 5, pp. 1-9 (Feb. 2010) in Chinese.
Also, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and
Informetrics, pp. 369-380, Rio de Janeiro, July, 2009.
Shelton, RD and Leydesdorff, L (2011) Bibliometric evidence for an empirical trade-off
in national funding strategies. To be presented at the 13th International Conference
on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Durban, July, 2011.
Shelton, RD (2011) Scientometric models for European output indicators: Papers,
patents, doctorates and sales. Submitted to the 2011 International Conference on
Science and Technology Indicators, Rome, September, 2011.