Edge factors: scientific frontier positions of nations
A key decision in scientific work is whether to build on novel or well-established ideas. Because exploiting new ideas is often harder than more conventional science, novel work can be especially dependent on interactions with colleagues, the training environment, and ready access to potential collaborators. Location may thus influence the tendency to pursue work that is close to the edge of the scientific frontier in the sense that it builds on recent ideas. We calculate for each nation its position relative to the edge of the scientific frontier by measuring its propensity to build on relatively new ideas in biomedical research. Text analysis of 20 + million publications shows that the United States and South Korea have the highest tendencies for novel science. China has become a leader in favoring newer ideas when working with basic science ideas and research tools, but is still slow to adopt new clinical ideas. Many locations remain far behind the leaders in terms of their tendency to work with novel ideas, indicating that the world is far from flat in this regard.
KeywordsScience Novelty Impact factor New ideas Idea adoption
I thank Jay Bhattacharya, Bruce Weinberg, Partha Bhattacharyya, Richard Freeman, Horatiu Rus, Joel Blit, David Autor, Larry Smith and Peter Tu for discussions. I acknowledge financial support from the National Institute on Aging grant P01-AG039347.
- Alberts, B. (2013). Impact factor distortions. Science, 340, 6134.Google Scholar
- Bornmann, L., Wagner, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). The geography of references in elite articles: What countries contribute to the archives of knowledge, Unpublished manuscript available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.06479.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2018.
- Boudreau, K. J., Guinan, E. C., Lakhari, K. R., & Riedl, C. (2016). looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance. Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science, Management Science, 62, 2765–2783.Google Scholar
- Brezis, E. S., Krugman, P. R., & Tsiddon, D. (1993). Leapfrogging in international competition: A theory of cycles in national technological leadership. American Economic Review, 83, 1211–1219.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. B. (2013). “One ring to rule them all?” Globalization of knowledge and knowledge creation. Nordic Economic Policy Review, 1, 11–44.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. B., & Huang, W. (2015). China’s “Great Leap Forward” in science and engineering. In A. Geuna (Ed.), Global mobility of research scientists: The economics of who goes where and why. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: shifting impact. Geography, and Stratification in Science, Science, 322, 1259–1262.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment and theory choice. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension (pp. 320–339). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Lucas, R. E., Jr. (2004). Lectures on economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
- National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators. National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
- Packalen, M., & Bhattacharya, J. (2015). Cities and ideas, National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper no. 20921.Google Scholar
- Packalen, M., & Bhattacharya, J. (2016). Age and the trying out of new ideas. Journal of Human Capital, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Wang, J., Veugelers, R., & Stephan, P. (2016). Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators, National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper no. 22180.Google Scholar
- Yu, X., Zhang, C., & Lai, Q. (2014). China’s rise as a major contributor to science and technology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 11, 9437–9442.Google Scholar