Skip to main content

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  • Agrawal, A., & Goldfarb, A. (2008). Restructuring research: Communication costs and the democratization of university innovation. American Economic Review, 98, 1578–1590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberts, B. (2013). Impact factor distortions. Science, 340, 6134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besancenot, D., & Vranceanu, R. (2015). Fear of novelty: A model of strategic discovery with strategic uncertainty. Economic Inquiry, 53, 1132–1139.

    Article  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 The geography of references in elite articles: What countries contribute to the archives of knowledge, Unpublished manuscript available at Accessed 1 July 2018.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 

  • Ding, W., Levin, S., Stephan, P., & Winkler, A. (2010). The impact of information technology on acedemic scientists’ productivity and collaboration patterns. Management Science, 56, 1439–1461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, J. G., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80, 875–908.

    Article  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 

  • Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 15, 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analyses as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178, 471–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidalgo, C. E., & Hausmann, R. (2009). The building blocks of economic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10570–10575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. F. (2010). Age and great invention. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 1–14.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.-N., Walsh, J. P., & Wang, J. (2015). Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy, 44, 684–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E., Jr. (2004). Lectures on economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E., Jr., & Moll, B. (2014). Knowledge growth and allocation of time. Journal of Political Economy, 122, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mokyr, J. (1994). Cardwell’s law and the political economy of technological progress. Research Policy, 23, 561–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators. National Science Foundation.

  • Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2015). Ranking games. Evaluation Review, 32, 102–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packalen, M., & Bhattacharya, J. (2015). Cities and ideas, National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper no. 20921.

  • Packalen, M., & Bhattacharya, J. (2016). Age and the trying out of new ideas. Journal of Human Capital, forthcoming.

  • Packalen, M., & Bhattacharya, J. (2017). Neophilia ranking of scientific journals. Scientometrics, 110, 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rzhetzky, A., Foster, J. G., Foster, I. T., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Choosing experiments to accelerate collective discovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 14569–14574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher, A. P. (1929). A history of mechanical inventions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    MATH  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.

  • Weber, G. M. (2013). Identifying translational science within the triangle of biomedicine. Journal of Translational Medicine, 11, e126.

    Article  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 

Download references


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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mikko Packalen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1469 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Packalen, M. Edge factors: scientific frontier positions of nations. Scientometrics 118, 787–808 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: