{"title":"United Kingdom’s contribution to European research output in biomedical sciences: 2008–2017","authors":"R. Tan, E. Sijbrands","doi":"10.3897/ese.2020.e51112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) formally left the European Union (EU). Only a short transition period, until 31 December 2020, is available to negotiate collaborations for research in biomedical sciences and health care. Within the European scientific community, two opinions are common: 1) Brexit is an opportunity to obtain more funding at the expense of the departing British; and 2) UK colleagues should continue to collaborate in EU scientific efforts, including Horizon Europe and Erasmus+. To provide evidence for more informed negotiations, we sought to determine the contribution of the UK to EU’s research in biomedical sciences. Methods: We performed a macro level scientometric analysis to estimate the contribution of the UK and EU member states, including those associated with EU-funding (EU+) namely Albania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, and Ukraine, to preclinical, clinical and health sciences. We searched the Web of Science database to count the total number of scientific publications and the top 1% most cited publications in the world between 2008 and 2017, calculated the performance efficiency by dividing the top 1% by the total number, and calculated the odds ratios to create a ranking of performance efficiency. We then compared the contribution of the UK to all the EU+ -based publications and the top 1% to the contributions of the ten EU member states with the largest biomedical research output and also compared the respective contributions to EU+ publications that resulted from collaborations with other regions in the world. Results: We found 2,991,016 biomedical publications from EU+ during 2008–2017, of which 19,019 (0.64%) were in the world’s top 1% of the most cited publications. The UK produced 665,467 (22.3%) of these publications and had over two and a half times more top 1% most cited publications than the EU+ (odds ratio 2.79, 95% CI 2.71–2.88, p< 0.001). The UK’s share in the EU+ co-publications with regions outside Europe ranged between 23.0% for the Arab League and 50.6% for Australia and New Zealand and its share of the top 1% ranged between 48.6% for the USA and Canada and 70.7% for the African Union. Conclusions: The UK contributed far more highly cited publications than the rest of the EU+ states and strongly contributed to European collaborations with the rest of the world during 2008–2017. This suggests that if the UK ceases to participate in EU scientific collaborations as a result of Brexit, the quantity and quality of EU’s research in biomedical sciences will be adversely affected.","PeriodicalId":35360,"journal":{"name":"European Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Science Editing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Background: On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) formally left the European Union (EU). Only a short transition period, until 31 December 2020, is available to negotiate collaborations for research in biomedical sciences and health care. Within the European scientific community, two opinions are common: 1) Brexit is an opportunity to obtain more funding at the expense of the departing British; and 2) UK colleagues should continue to collaborate in EU scientific efforts, including Horizon Europe and Erasmus+. To provide evidence for more informed negotiations, we sought to determine the contribution of the UK to EU’s research in biomedical sciences. Methods: We performed a macro level scientometric analysis to estimate the contribution of the UK and EU member states, including those associated with EU-funding (EU+) namely Albania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, and Ukraine, to preclinical, clinical and health sciences. We searched the Web of Science database to count the total number of scientific publications and the top 1% most cited publications in the world between 2008 and 2017, calculated the performance efficiency by dividing the top 1% by the total number, and calculated the odds ratios to create a ranking of performance efficiency. We then compared the contribution of the UK to all the EU+ -based publications and the top 1% to the contributions of the ten EU member states with the largest biomedical research output and also compared the respective contributions to EU+ publications that resulted from collaborations with other regions in the world. Results: We found 2,991,016 biomedical publications from EU+ during 2008–2017, of which 19,019 (0.64%) were in the world’s top 1% of the most cited publications. The UK produced 665,467 (22.3%) of these publications and had over two and a half times more top 1% most cited publications than the EU+ (odds ratio 2.79, 95% CI 2.71–2.88, p< 0.001). The UK’s share in the EU+ co-publications with regions outside Europe ranged between 23.0% for the Arab League and 50.6% for Australia and New Zealand and its share of the top 1% ranged between 48.6% for the USA and Canada and 70.7% for the African Union. Conclusions: The UK contributed far more highly cited publications than the rest of the EU+ states and strongly contributed to European collaborations with the rest of the world during 2008–2017. This suggests that if the UK ceases to participate in EU scientific collaborations as a result of Brexit, the quantity and quality of EU’s research in biomedical sciences will be adversely affected.
背景:2020年1月31日,英国正式脱离欧盟。只有到2020年12月31日的短暂过渡期可用于谈判生物医学科学和卫生保健研究方面的合作。在欧洲科学界,有两种观点很普遍:1)英国脱欧是一个以英国退欧为代价获得更多资金的机会;2)英国同事应继续在欧盟的科学努力中合作,包括“欧洲地平线”和“伊拉斯谟+”。为了为更明智的谈判提供证据,我们试图确定英国对欧盟生物医学科学研究的贡献。方法:我们进行了宏观层面的科学计量分析,以估计英国和欧盟成员国对临床前、临床和健康科学的贡献,包括与欧盟资助(EU+)相关的国家,即阿尔巴尼亚、亚美尼亚、波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那、法罗群岛、格鲁吉亚、冰岛、以色列、马其顿、摩尔多瓦、黑山、挪威、塞尔维亚、瑞士、突尼斯、土耳其和乌克兰。我们检索了Web of Science数据库,统计了2008年至2017年全球科学出版物总数和被引次数最多的前1%的出版物,用前1%的出版物除以总数计算了绩效效率,并计算了优势比,得出了绩效效率排名。然后,我们比较了英国对所有欧盟+出版物的贡献,以及前1%对欧盟十大生物医学研究产出最大的成员国的贡献,并比较了各自与世界其他地区合作对欧盟+出版物的贡献。结果:2008-2017年,我们发现来自EU+的生物医学出版物2,991,016篇,其中19,019篇(0.64%)进入全球被引频次前1%。其中,英国发表了665,467篇(22.3%),被引用最多的前1%的论文是欧盟+的2.5倍多(优势比2.79,95% CI 2.71-2.88, p< 0.001)。英国在欧盟+与欧洲以外地区的共同出版物中所占份额在阿拉伯联盟的23.0%和澳大利亚和新西兰的50.6%之间,在前1%的份额在美国和加拿大的48.6%和非洲联盟的70.7%之间。结论:在2008-2017年期间,英国比其他欧盟+国家贡献了更多的高引用出版物,并为欧洲与世界其他地区的合作做出了巨大贡献。这表明,如果英国因脱欧而停止参与欧盟的科学合作,欧盟生物医学科学研究的数量和质量将受到不利影响。
期刊介绍:
EASE"s journal, European Science Editing , publishes articles, reports meetings, announces new developments and forthcoming events, reviews books, software and online resources, and highlights publications of interest to members.