Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37410762›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

USA vs Russia in the scientific arena.

Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo, Flavia Di Costa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Giovanni AbramoLaboratory for Studies in Research Evaluation, Institute for System Analysis and Computer Science (IASI-CNR), National Research Council of Italy, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0731-3635
Ciriaco Andrea D'AngeloDepartment of Engineering and Management, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Flavia Di CostaDepartment of Engineering and Management, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work contrasts the scientific standing of the USA and Russia in 146 scientific disciplines. We consider four dimensions of competitive positioning: the contribution to global scientific advancement, the researchers' productivity, the scientific specialization indexes, and the efficiency in resource allocation across disciplines. Differently from previous literature, we use discipline-normalized output to input indicators, thus avoiding distortions due to different intensities of publication across disciplines. Results show that the USA outperforms Russia in contribution to world scholarly impact in all but four disciplines, and is more productive in all but two disciplines. The USA is less efficient in allocating resources to the disciplines where it performs better, probably due to its higher research diversification.

Indexed as

EfficiencyRussia

Identifiers

PMID37410762
PMCPMC10325073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.