GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT JAPAN JUNE 2010 JONATHAN ADAMS CHRISTOPHER KING NOBUKO MIYAIRI DAVID PENDLEBURY EVIDENCE

Transcription

1 JAPAN JUNE 2010 JONATHAN ADAMS CHRISTOPHER KING NOBUKO MIYAIRI DAVID PENDLEBURY EVIDENCE

2 THE AUTHORS Jonathan Adams is Director, Research Evaluation. He was a founding Director of Evidence Ltd, the UK specialist on research performance analysis and interpretation. Christopher King is Editor of Science Watch (ScienceWatch.com), a newsletter and web resource tracking trends and performance in basic research. Nobuko Miyairi is Principal Consultant, Research Solutions, Asia Pacific at Thomson Reuters. David Pendlebury, formerly Manager of Contract Research Services for Thomson Reuters, now serves as a Consultant on bibliometric analysis. He also writes a weekly column on research metrics for the Times Higher Education magazine. This report has been published by Evidence, a Thomson Reuters business 103 Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9DF, UK T/ F/ E/ scientific.enquiries.evidence@thomson.com Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters ISBN:

3 JAPAN JUNE 2010 INTRODUCTION This Global Research Report is part of a series launched by Thomson Reuters to inform policymakers about the changing landscape and dynamics of the global research base. Previous reports examined the scientific enterprises of the so-called BRIC countries: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The BRIC is an influential group of populous economies with massive economic potential. With the exception of Russia, the group exhibits remarkable growth in research output and collaboration. Subsequent reports on two resourcerich regions, Australia/New Zealand and Africa, added to our picture of key players in the global research enterprise. These reports collectively draw our attention to a strengthening in international partnerships, particularly with Asian and Latin American countries, and a changing geography of those who publish in the internationally influential journals indexed by Thomson Reuters. We now turn to Japan, a G7 economy and the traditional scientific leader of Asia. Japan drove its post-war reconstruction at a phenomenal pace. The post-war baby-boomers, shaped by the nation s industrious character, provided a committed labor force that enabled strong economic growth into the 1960s and 1970s. However, by the time Japan established its well-founded reputation for excellence based on the quality of its innovative industrial products, the nation was falling into a so-called Lost Decade after the economy peaked in the 1980s. This was followed by chronic economic stagnation which continues until today. In 1995, the Japanese government introduced the Science and Technology Basic Act and launched its first Basic Plan for Science and Technology with a 17 trillion R&D expenditure over five years. That Plan focused on reconstructing the R&D base with a programme of 10,000 young postdoctoral researchers, promotion of industryacademia-government collaboration, and growth in competitive research. Concerns about both the effects of policy decisions in the 1990s and the response of the Japanese research base has recently been voiced by Professor Ken-ichi Arai. He is is optimistic, however, about more recent change and pan-asian opportunity. The new Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP), established under the Cabinet Office, led the second Basic Plan ( ). This increased research expenditure of 24 trillion focused on strategic priorities in four areas: Life Sciences, Information & Communications, Environment, and Nanotechnology & Materials. It also recognized four growth areas in Energy, Monozukuri Technology (excellence in manufacturing), Social Infrastructure, and Frontier Science. Japan has aimed for structural change in its research base. Historically, Japanese national universities had been the backbone and key drivers of basic science. For more than 100 years, all national universities had been fully funded by government. This changed in 2004 when the universities were given independent-corporation status, with their general subsidy falling by 1% each year. The goal was to increase university competency by encouraging active participation in R&D restructuring. The third Basic Plan ( ) has a greater orientation to social needs, international competencies and the sustainability of the R&D system. Meanwhile, beginning in 2006, the Cabinet Office has set forth a long-term national strategy, Innovation 25, to foster and grow innovative contributions in medicine, technology and information. Strategic change is set in a context of greater accountability and increased efficiencies. Japan s S&T budgets, including those for the Japan Science and Technology Agency and RIKEN, are under scrutiny to reduce administration and redirect resources. Under the increasing pressure of a dwindling birthrate and an age-skewed society, the country looks increasingly to its scientific and technological elites for new solutions to both economic and social challenges.

4 RESEARCH AND COLLABORATION IN JAPAN Japan has a well-established research enterprise, world-class universities and government laboratories, and has produced a number of Nobel Prize winners. Yet its relative impact, across all fields taken together, remains below the world average. While its neighboring nations citation impact is on the rise, Japan s numbers have lagged. What is behind this underperformance? What threats are on the horizon as a result? And what opportunities are emerging across the region? OVERVIEW In contrast to the scientific output of two surging Asian economies previously examined in these Global Research Reports India and China Japan s yield of research publications has been comparatively flat over the last decade. Figure 1 compares the annual publication rate of Japan against that of China, the UK, France, and Australia for the years 2000 to Although outpaced by China s striking spike in the last four or five years, the latter three nations display modest gains in output. Japan, meanwhile, follows a largely horizontal track, beginning with 72,000 Thomson Reuters-indexed papers in 2000 and only twice breaching the 80,000-paper mark (in 2003 and 2005), finishing with 78,500 in Japan s overall share of the world s annual scientific literature has also slipped since 2000, from 9.45% to 6.75% in The nation is not alone in this trend among mature economies in the face of greater output and increasing international participation on the part of developing nations. The US overall share, for example, fell from 33.5% in 2000 to 28.5% in 2009, while the UK dropped from 9.43% to 7.68%. FIGURE 1 Japan s annual research output has remained largely flat over the last decade, especially compared with surging China. 125, ,000 Annual publication Web of Science 75,000 50,000 25,000 China UK Japan France Australia

5 Japan and the other comparator nations can also be examined in terms of the citation impact of their published papers. Citations, of course, constitute quantifiable evidence of the utility, significance, and influence of research as judged by the scientific community itself. Figure 2 tracks overall citation impact, reflecting all fields, for Japan and the selected nations for tentime-windows from 1996 through Citations grow over time so we have sought to keep a constant picture by using five-year windows where we look at the publications produced in a five-year period and the citations to them in the same period. The publications in each window overlap by four years with the next but the citation coverage progressively moves forward. The key statistic we use to index citation counts is that of relative impact, comparing each nation s cites-per-paper average against a world baseline figure, represented on the graph as 1. As the graph shows, the United Kingdom, France, and Australia all surpass the world baseline, with Australia trending noticeably upward in recent years. Japan, meanwhile, fails to reach the world mark, suggesting that, at least in terms of overall impact, the nation still has progress to make. Impact in individual fields, however, is another story, as will be discussed below. As in the previous graph showing output, China shows the most marked change, with its relative impact beginning to rise more steeply from its historically low base and projecting to continue upwards in what would seem to be an inexorable climb towards the world average. FIGURE 2 Japan s overall citation impact relative to the world, as tracked with that of comparative nations in overlapping five-year periods since 1996, is rising but has yet to exceed the world baseline (n = 1.00) Relative impact compared to world UK France Australia Japan China

6 WHERE IS JAPAN FOCUSED? In addition to tracking Japan s research output in recent years, Thomson Reuters data also permit one to identify specific fields in which Japan is most highly concentrated, as well as to more closely assess the impact of Japanese research in those fields. Table 1 shows Japan s contribution to selected main fields of science, as measured by percent share of world papers in each field, compared over two successive five-year windows: 2000 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009 (and ranked by share during the latter period). For the recent five-year window, Physics proved to be Japan s area of highest representation in the Thomson Reuters database, with roughly 54,800 papers constituting just over 11% of the field. This is a shift from the previous five-year span, during which, as the table indicates, Materials Science, at 14.25%, represented Japan s highest percent share of any main field during 2000 to If Japan s concentration in those physical-sciences fields is perhaps expected, then more striking might be the nation s strong showing in two disciplines within the life sciences: Pharmacology & Toxicology and Biology & Biochemistry. These fields, respectively, accounted for Japan s second- and fourth-highest percent shares of world papers. It is also worth noting, however, that in many instances, Japan s percent share, not to mention its absolute number of papers, actually declined between the two five-year periods. This was the case, for example, in Physics, in which Japan s 2000-to-2004 output of 54,914 papers and 13.86% overall share of the field dropped to 54,835 papers and 11.09% for the subsequent time span. This observation would seem to echo the overall national trend of comparatively flat output and declining world share. TABLE 1 Japan s share of world publications along with its citation impact in selected main fields covered by Thomson Reuters, as compared over two successive five-year periods Cites per paper Field Count Share (%) Count Share (%) Physics 54, , Pharmacology & Toxicology 9, , Materials Science 25, , Biology & Biochemistry 29, , Chemistry 55, , Molec. Biology & Genetics 12, , Microbiology 6, , Neuroscience & Behavior 12, , Clinical Medicine 77, , Immunology 5, , Engineering 30, , Space Science 4, , Plant & Animal Science 17, , Geosciences 6, , Agricultural Sciences 5, , Computer Science 6, ,

7 A more-detailed look at Japan s specific subfield of concentration, according to the classification scheme employed in Thomson Reuters Web of Science SM, underscores Japan s emphasis in the physical sciences. Applied Physics accounts for the nation s largest share of any field, with nearly 15% of papers for 2005 to 2009, with Condensed Matter Physics not far behind. Several subfields of Materials Science, including Paper & Wood, Ceramics, Coatings & Films, and Biomaterials, also rank highly in terms of Japan s representation. Table 1 also includes, in its right-hand columns, the cites-per-paper figures for Japan-based research in each of the specified fields for the two five-year periods. In each case, based on papers published and cited during the respective interval, the impact figures go up in the last five years. It should be noted that citation averages slowly increase over time. In Chemistry, Microbiology, Immunology, and notably in Space Science, the increase is, however, substantial. For a more retrospective look, Figure 3 tracks the impact of Japanese research in selected fields over a longer period beginning with 1996, in a series of overlapping five-year periods, with Japan s cites-perpaper score rendered in relation to the world impact average in each field, a baseline represented as in the impact graph above as 1. FIGURE 3 Japan s citation impact relative to the world average (n = 1.00) in selected main fields, tracked in overlapping five-year periods since Space Science Relative impact compared to world Immunology Plant & Animal Sciences Geosciences Physics Chemistry Materials Science The graph shows those fields in which Japan has made notable progress in the last 14 years. Once again, Materials Science conforms to expectations, sailing along at or above the world baseline since the initial five-year period. Also noticeably ascendant in impact, however, are Geosciences, Plant & Animal Sciences, and, as indicated above, Immunology. Space Science, too, shows itself to be an area of strength in recent years. An examination of Japan s highly cited Space Science papers reveals well-placed participation in such high-impact international projects as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission. JAPAN S HIGHLY-CITED RESEARCH Japan has a well-established research enterprise, world-class universities and government laboratories, and has produced a number of Nobel Prize winners. So it is puzzling to observe that the average rate of citation to its research articles in the internationally influential journals tracked by Thomson Reuters is significantly below those of other G7 nations. In terms of relative citation impact (defined as citations per paper compared with the world average for citations per paper) across all fields taken together, Japan scores 2% below the world for the period While this level of citation is the highest for Japan in the last three decades, it is still some 20% below Italy (ranked sixth among the G7) and some 46% below the United States (ranked first among the G7) for

8 Why does Japan have this profile? Citation distributions are extremely skewed, and highly-cited papers (those ranked in the top 1% by citations for their year of publication and field) have a disproportionate influence in setting average scores. In the case of Japan, there are relatively fewer highly-cited papers produced compared with other G7 nations. For example, since 2000, 1.8% of the US s output of papers qualifies as highly-cited. The comparable figures for the UK, Canada, Germany, France, and Italy, are, respectively: 1.8%, 1.4%, 1.4%, 1.2%, and 1.1%. By contrast, Japan s output of highly cited papers is just 0.7% of its overall production. National citation statistics when analyzed across all fields together, however, can mask certain fields in which a nation exhibits superior performance. For Japan, space sciences (including astronomy and astrophysics), immunology, plant and animal science, and geosciences are such areas of excellence. In these areas, during the period , Japan s production of highly cited papers exceeded, in percentage terms, its world share of such papers. Note as well the rise in relative impact for these fields over the same period. TABLE 2 Japan s worldshare of publications and of highly-cited papers in select fields Field World Share (%) Percent Highly Relative Impact Cited Papers / Space Science / 1.14 Immunology / 1.10 Plant and Animal Sciences / 1.08 Geosciences / 1.06 Physics is the field in which Japan contributed its highest world share of highly cited papers: 11.2%. This was slightly below its world share in the field of 12.3% during Second, third, fourth, and fifth for Japan, in world share of highly cited papers, are Immunology, Space Science, Materials Science (9.0%), and Plant and Animal Sciences. Several of the areas in which Japan produced more highly cited papers than expected appear in the bottom half of Table 1. Output and world share statistics, therefore, can never provide a full picture of research performance: relative citation rates, trends in relating to the same, and highly-cited paper production are important component statistics in any analysis. COLLABORATION International collaboration can be an important indicator of the reach and impact of a country s research. Levels of international collaboration can be measured by analyzing authors institutional affiliations provided on publications. Table 3 highlights the level of Japan s international collaborations. It shows numbers and percentages of publications with overseas addresses. The collaborations are shown for two time periods: and The table shows the most frequent countries and focuses on links and regions of particular policy significance. Two things are made clear by Table 3. First, Japan s partners are the leading economies in the G7 (USA, UK, Germany, France, Canada and Italy) and in the Asia-Pacific region (China, South Korea, and Australia). Of the countries reviewed in our Global Research Report series, Japan s links show the sharpest pattern of association with other leading economies and underscores its position in this elite group. The United States is the largest global research economy and has strong ties to Japan s research base through many collaborative initiatives. However, the US co-authors just 8% of Japanese publications compared to nearly 16% of UK publications and 14% of Australian publications. Collaboration is in line with but slightly less than the US s 9% share of China s publications. What this means is that much more of Japan s performance is driven by domestic activity than through synergy with the United States as a partner, which may also mean that there remains room for a significant increase in such partnerships. Researcher Yuan Sun, in recent papers with Masamitsu Negishi and Loet Leydesdorff, has commented on the growth of international collaboration in Japan. This may be an important part of the reinvigoration of the Japanese research base, designed both to introduce innovative ideas and to reaffirm Japan s competence and contribution among overseas researchers.

9 The major regional partnerships with China and South Korea are likely to be of increasing significance as their domestic research bases also grow. Our report on China (2009) is relevant. We then looked at slightly earlier five-year periods. Taking that view alongside the one in this report confirms the rapid and continuing expansion in Sino-Japanese links. Australia also has stronger collaborative links with Japan than with Italy or Russia. In sum, an Asia/Pacific regional network is emerging. TABLE 3 Japan s leading international research partners in the last decade Papers collaborative with Japan Share (%) of Japan total, USA 36,064 USA 41, China 8,410 China 14, Germany 8,017 Germany 10, UK 7,313 UK 9, South Korea 5,131 South Korea 7, France 4,816 France 7, Canada 4,326 Canada 5, Russia 3,623 Australia 4, Australia 3,099 Italy 4, Italy 2,892 Russia 3, Table 4 shows international institutions with which Japanese researchers published frequently between 2005 and The institutions in this list were selected from among the top twenty collaborating institutions. This list serves to give a sense of the international flavor and diversity of Japan s research collaborations. Some 4 out of 10 institutions are from the Asia Pacific region. The Chinese Academy of Sciences was the biggest partner, with nearly 3,000 publications in the five-year period. Apart from the institutions in Asia, other links with frequent collaboration were spread right across the G7 group plus a traditionally strong link with the Russian Academy of Sciences. The German, French and Italian partners are all associated with global high energy physics programs. TABLE 4 International organizations collaborating frequently with Japan Organization Country Number of co-authored papers Chinese Academy of Sciences China 2,923 Harvard University USA 2,018 Max Planck Society Germany 1,669 Seoul National University South Korea 1,383 University of Michigan USA 1,361 Russian Academy of Sciences Russia 1,331 University of Toronto Canada 1,140 University College London UK 1,046 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique France 986 Beijing University China 805 Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Italy 752 University of Melbourne Australia 586

10 SUMMARY Japan is an intriguing research policy conundrum. The country has been a leading contributor to the development of modern science in many fields over half a century. It has invented a technology-based economy and become an exponent of innovative approaches to quality control and customer-focused product development. It has reached the very pinnacles of intellectual achievement in Nobel and other world prizes. It is therefore difficult to explain the Lost Decade, the underperformance in research and the relative fall in Japan s overall competitiveness. While citation counts are rising in most jurisdictions, and citation impact is rising markedly amongst Asian neighbors, Japan remains mostly static in its profile. In some fields where it had a leading position its share has fallen markedly. It is also noticeable that it is actually much less collaborative than other G7 nations or its regional partners. The initiatives that we noted in the Introduction are a signal of the Japanese government s awareness of the challenge, and of the risk that arises if the research base cannot help to lift social and economic innovation. The level of planned investment is considerable, and the freeing up of the Japanese university system to seek diverse solutions is an important policy move. Japan may have been held back by the lack of nearby partners. Professor Ken-ichi Arai also suggests that Japan s career tracks militated against international mobility and regional networks. Now Japan must take advantage of the opportunities on its door-step. The Asia-Pacific region is on course to be a powerful focus for the next phase of global research development. The Asian tiger economies have already shown one burst of innovation. Growth in China and India is on a massive upward trajectory. The quality of research has improved markedly in some institutions across the Asia-Pacific region and that pattern is likely to become pervasive. The leading institutions will want to partner with established regional centers of excellence. Japan could benefit enormously in gaining access by joining with new partners with new ideas who are just a few hours flight away. Is there a threat here for Japan? The lack of impetus in what has evidently been a very strong research base must be worrying for any policy maker. But regional diversification may be just the stimulus that is needed to rebuild the momentum that enabled Japan to do so well in the post-war period. There is no doubt about the national capacity for rapid and dynamic intellectual and technological advancement. The research challenges of disease, ageing, food security, information technology and social inclusion are all targets to which that capacity could be applied collaboratively with enormous mutual benefit across the region. REFERENCES Global Research Reports Evidence Thomson Reuters D.W. Aksnes, G. Sivertsen, The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators, Scientometrics, 59 (2): , K. Arai, Japanese science in a global world, Science, 328 (5983): 1207, Y. Sun, M. Negishi, Measuring the relationships among university, industry and other sectors in Japan s national innovation system: a comparison of new approaches with mutual information indicators, Scientometrics, 82 (3): , Y. Sun, M. Negishi, M. Nishizawa, Co-authorship linkages between universities and industry in Japan, Research Evaluation, 16 (4): , Y. Sun, M. Negishi, L. Leydesdorff, National and international dimensions of the triple helix in Japan: University-industry-government and international co-authorship relations, in, D. Torres Salinas and H.F. Moed, eds., Proceedings of ISSI 2007: 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Volumes I and II: , 2007.

11

12 Science Head Offices Americas Philadelphia Europe, Middle East and Africa London Asia Pacific Singapore Tokyo For a complete office list visit: science.thomsonreuters.com/contact AG Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters