, Volume 95, Issue 1, pp 453–464 | Cite as

The end of the “European Paradox”

  • Neus Herranz
  • Javier Ruiz-Castillo


This paper evaluates the European Paradox according to which Europe plays a leading world role in terms of scientific excellence, measured in terms of the number of publications, but lacks the entrepreneurial capacity of the US to transform this excellent performance into innovation, growth, and jobs. Citation distributions for the US, the European Union (EU), and the Rest of the World are evaluated using a pair of high- and low-impact indicators, as well as the mean citation rate (MCR). The dataset consists of 3.6 million articles published in 1998–2002 with a common 5-year citation window. The analysis is carried at a low aggregation level, namely, the 219 sub-fields identified with the Web of Science categories distinguished by Thomson Scientific. The problems posed by international co-authorship and the multiple assignments of articles to sub-fields are solved following a multiplicative strategy. We find that, although the EU has more publications than the US in 113 out of 219 sub-fields, the US is ahead of the EU in 189 sub-fields in terms of the high-impact indicator, and in 163 sub-fields in terms of the low-impact indicator. Finally, we verify that using the high-impact indicator the US/EU gap is usually greater than when using the MCR.


Citation impact Research performance US/European Union gap High- and low-impact indicators Mean citation rate 



The authors acknowledge financial support from the Santander Universities Global Division of Banco Santander. Ruiz-Castillo also acknowledges financial help from the Spanish MEC through grant SEJ2007-67436. This paper is part of the SCIFI-GLOW Collaborative Project supported by the European Commission’s Seventh Research Framework Programme, Contract number SSH7-CT-2008-217436.


  1. Aksnes, D., Schneider, J., & Gunnarsson, M. (2012). Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albarrán, P., Crespo, J., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2010). A comparison of the scientific performance of the U.S. and Europe at the turn of the 21st century. Scientometrics, 85, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albarrán, P., Crespo, J., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011a). The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics, 88, 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011b). The measurement of low- and high-impact in citation distributions: technical results. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011c). High- and low-impact citation measures: empirical applications. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 122–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Albarrán, P., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011d). Average-based versus high- and low-impact indicators for the evaluation of citation distributions. Research Evaluation, 20, 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Albarrán, P., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). References made and citations received by scientific articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anderson, J., Collins, P., Irvine, J., Isard, P., Martin, B., Narin, F., et al. (1988). On-line approaches to measuring national scientific output: a cautionary tale. Science and Public Policy, 15, 153–161.Google Scholar
  9. Bouyssou, D., & Marchant, T. (2011). Bibliometric rankings of journals based on impact factors: an axiomatic approach. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delanghe, H., Sloan, B., & Muldur, U. (2011). European research policy and bibliometric indicators, 1990–2005. Scientometrics, 87, 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Sylos Labini, M. (2006). The relationship between science, technologies, and their industrial exploitation: an illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35, 1450–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Sylos Labini, M. (2009). “Does the ‘European Paradox’ still hold? Did it ever?” In: H. Delanghe, B. Sloan, U. Muldur (Eds.), European science and technology policy: towards integration or fragmentation? (pp. 1450–1464). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Foster, J. E., Greeer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica, 52, 761–766.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glänzel, W. (2007). Characteristic scores and scales: a bibliometric analysis of subject characteristics based on long-term citation observation. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glänzel, W. (2010). “The application of characteristics scores and scales to the evaluation and ranking of scientific journals”, forthcoming in proceedings of INFO 2010 (pp. 1–13). Cuba: Havana.Google Scholar
  16. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56, 357–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herranz, N. & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). “The end of the ‘European Paradox’”, working paper 11–27, Universidad Carlos III.
  18. Herranz, N. & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2012a). “Multiplicative and fractional strategies when journals are assigned to several sub-fields”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi:  10.1002/asi.22629 (in press).
  19. Herranz, N. & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2012b). “Sub-field normalization procedures in the multiplicative case: high- and low-impact citation indicators”. Research Evaluation. doi: 10.1093/reeval/rvs006 (in press).
  20. King, D. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430, 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. May, R. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275, 793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010, appendix tables. Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. Ravallion, M., & Wagstaff, A. (2011). On measuring scholarly influence by citations. Scientometrics, 88, 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., & Braun, T. (1987). A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics, 12, 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Seglen, P. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 628–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tijssen, J. W., & van Leeuwen, T. (2003). “Bibliometric analysis of world science”, extended technical annex to chapter 5 of the third European report on science and technology indicators. Luxembourg: Directorate-General for Research Office for Official Publications of the European Community.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Departamento de EconomíaUniversidad Carlos III, and Research Associate of the CEPR Project SCIFI-GLOWGetafeSpain

Personalised recommendations