Scientometrics

, Volume 108, Issue 2, pp 559–593 | Cite as

Academic research in innovation: a country analysis

  • José M. Merigó
  • Christian A. Cancino
  • Freddy Coronado
  • David Urbano
Article

Abstract

Many countries are investing a lot in innovation in order to modernize their economies. A key step in this process is the development of academic research in innovation. This article analyzes the leading countries in innovation research between 1989 and 2013 from an academic perspective. The aim of the study is to identify the most relevant countries in this field and the leading trends that are occurring during the last years. The work also introduces a general perspective analyzing the research developed in several supranational regions. The main advantage of this contribution is that it gives a global overview of the current academic state of the art in the area. The analysis focuses on the most productive and influential countries in innovation research classifying the results in periods of 5 years. The leading journals in the field are also studied individually identifying the most productive countries in each of the journals. The results show that the publications of each country are biased by the country origin of the journal. The USA and the UK are the leading countries in this field being the UK the most productive one in per capita terms among the big countries.

Keywords

Innovation Bibliometrics Country analysis Web of Science VOS viewer 

Supplementary material

11192_2016_1984_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2175 kb)

References

  1. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). H-index: A review focused on its variants, computation, and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86, 630–640.Google Scholar
  3. Bertocchi, G., Gambardella, A., Jappelli, T., Nappi, C. A., & Peracchi, F. (2015). Bibliometric evaluation vs informed peer review: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 44, 451–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biemans, W., Griffin, A., & Moenaert, R. (2007). Twenty years of the Journal of Product Innovation Management: History, participants, and knowledge stock and flows. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biemans, W., Griffin, A., & Moenaert, R. (2010). In search of the classics: A study of the impact of JPIM papers from 1984 to 2003. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 461–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonilla, C., Merigó, J. M., & Torres-Abad, C. (2015). Economics in Latin America: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105, 1239–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “Bibliometrics”. Scientometrics, 12, 373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cancino, C., Merigó, J. M., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2015). A bibliometric analysis of innovation research. CID Working Papers, 2015-01. Chile: University of Chile.Google Scholar
  9. Cheng, C. H., Kumar, A., Motwani, J. G., Reisman, A., & Madan, M. S. (1999). A citation analysis of the technology innovation management journals. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collazo-Reyes, F. (2014). Growth of the number of indexed journals of Latin America and the Caribbean: The effect on the impact of each country. Scientometrics, 98, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Confraria, H., & Godinho, M. M. (2015). The impact of African science: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 102, 1241–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coupé, T. (2003). Revealed performances: Worldwide rankings of economists and economics departments, 1990–2000. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 1309–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., & Wolfram, D. (2014). Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durisin, B., Calabretta, G., & Parmeggiani, V. (2010). The intellectual structure of product innovation research: A bibliometric study of the Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1984–2004. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emrouznejad, A., & Marra, M. (2014). Ordered weighted averaging operators 1988–2014. A citation based literature survey. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 29, 994–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fagerberg, J., Fosaas, M., & Sapprasert, K. (2012). Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41, 1132–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies: The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38, 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finardi, U. (2015). Scientific collaboration between BRICS countries. Scientometrics, 102, 1139–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang, C., Su, J., Xie, X., Ye, X., Li, Z., Porter, A., & Li, J. (2015). A bibliometric study of China’s science and technology policies: 1949–2010. Scientometrics, 102, 1521–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karamourzov, R. (2012). The development trends of science in the CIS countries on the basis of some scientometric indicators. Scientometrics, 91, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Aström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41, 1154–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linton, J. D. (2004). Perspective: Ranking business schools on the management of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 416–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linton, J. D., & Embrechts, M. (2007). MOT TIM journal rankings 2006. Technovation, 27, 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Linton, J. D., & Thongpapanl, N. (2004). Perspective: Ranking the technology innovation management journals. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41, 1219–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martyn, J. (1964). Bibliographic coupling. Journal of Documentation, 20, 236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merigó, J. M., Gil-Lafuente, A. M., & Yager, R. R. (2015a). An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators. Applied Soft Computing, 27, 420–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merigó, J. M., Mas-Tur, A., Roig-Tierno, N., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2015b). A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Business Research between 1973 and 2014. Journal of Business Research, 68, 2645–2653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Merigó, J. M., & Yang, J. B. (2016). Accounting research: A bibliometric analysis. Australian Accounting Review. doi:10.1111/auar.12109.Google Scholar
  32. Merino, M. T. G., do Carmo, M. L. P., & Alvarez, M. V. S. (2006). 25 years of Technovation: Characterization and evolution of the journal. Technovation, 26, 1303–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Panat, R. (2014). On the data and analysis of the research output of India and China: India has significantly fallen behind China. Scientometrics, 100, 471–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34, 641–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box: Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of innovation research (1988–2008). Strategic Management Journal, 34, 62–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thieme, J. (2007). Perspective: The world’s top innovation management scholars and their social capital. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 214–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thongpapanl, N. T. (2012). The changing landscape of technology and innovation management: An updated ranking of journals in the field. Technovation, 32, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tijssen, R. J. W. (2007). Africa’s contribution to the worldwide research literature: New analytical perspectives, trends, and performance indicators. Scientometrics, 71, 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Toivanen, H. (2014). The shift from theory to innovation: The evolution of Brazilian research frontiers 2005–2011. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Toivanen, H., & Ponomariov, B. (2011). African regional innovation systems: Bibliometric analysis of research collaboration patterns 2005–2009. Scientometrics, 88, 471–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waast, R., & Rossi, P. L. (2010). Scientific production in Arab countries: A bibliometric perspective. Science Technology & Society, 15, 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yang, P., & Tao, L. (2012). Perspective: Ranking of the world’s top innovation management scholars and universities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yeo, W. D., Kim, S. H., Park, H. W., & Kang, J. W. (2015). A bibliometric method for measuring the degree of technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 95, 152–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yu, D., & Shi, S. (2015). Researching the development of Atanassov intuitionistic fuzzy set: Using a citation network analysis. Applied Soft Computing, 32, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zacca-González, G., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2014). Bibliometric analysis of regional Latin America’s scientific output in public health through SCImago journal & country Rank. BMC Public Health, 14, 632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zavadskas, E. K., Kirvaitis, R., & Dagiene, E. (2011). Scientific publications released in the Baltic States. Scientometrics, 88, 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhu, J., Hassan, S. U., Mirza, H. T., & Xie, Q. (2014). Measuring recent research performance for Chinese universities using bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 101, 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • José M. Merigó
    • 1
  • Christian A. Cancino
    • 1
  • Freddy Coronado
    • 1
  • David Urbano
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Management Control and Information SystemsUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Department of BusinessUniversitat Autonoma de Barcelona BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations