Hitotsubashi University
Institute of Innovation Research

Knowledge Creation Process in Science:
Key Comparative Findings from the
Hitotsubashi-NISTEP-Georgia Tech Scientists'
Survey in Japan and the US

Sadao Nagaoka
Masatsura Igami
John P. WalshTomohiro Ijichi
IIR Working Paper WP#11-09

October 2011

Institute of Innovation Research
Hitotsubashi University
Tokyo, Japan
http://www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp

Knowledge Creation Process in Science:
Key Comparative Findings from the
Hitotsubashi-NISTEP-Georgia Tech Scientists’Survey in Japan and the US

October, 2011

SADAO NAGAOKAMASATSURA IGAMI
JOHN P. WALSHTOMOHIRO IJICHI

Knowledge creation process in science: Key comparative findings from the
Hitotsubashi-NISTEP-Georgia Tech scientists’ survey in Japan and the US
Sadao NAGAOKA
Masatsura IGAMIJohn P. WALSH
Tomohiro IJICHI

October, 2011

Please cite this report when you refer the contents of this report.

Table of contents
Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH .............................................................................. 7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 92 OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY METHOD ...............................................................................................11
2－1 Selection of the Survey targets ............................................................................................11
2－2 Implementation of the Survey ............................................................................................ 12
2－3 Field Classification for the Analysis ................................................................................... 13
2－4 Sector Classification for the Affiliation of Researchers ..................................................... 14
2－5 Response Rate by Field ....................................................................................................... 14
2－6 Characteristics of the Respondents .................................................................................... 17
3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOCAL PAPERS ...................................................................................... 30
3－1 Importance of the Focal Paper in the Field........................................................................ 30
4 MOTIVATIONS FOR THE RESEARCH PROJECT AND UNCERTAINTIES IN RESEARCH .......................... 32
4－1 Motivations for the Research Project ................................................................................. 32
4－2 Uncertainties in Research Process and in Research Outcome ......................................... 35
4－3 Serendipity ........................................................................................................................... 40
5 RESEARCH COMPETITION................................................................................................................ 42
6 KNOWLEDGE SOURCES AND RESEARCH MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 46
6－1 External Knowledge Sources that Inspired the Research Project .................................... 46
6－2 Research Management and its Potential Contributions ................................................... 50
6－3 Use of Advanced Research Facilities, Databases, and the Internet for DistantCollaborators................................................................................................................................. 52
7 RESEARCH TEAMS AS SEEN FROM AUTHORS .................................................................................. 54
7－1 Number of Authors .............................................................................................................. 55
7－2 Scope of Authors: Who Are the Authors? ............................................................................ 58
7－3 Combination of Authors in Academic/Professional Position ............................................. 60
7－4 Who Are the First Authors When the Authors Are Listed in Order of their Degree ofContributions ................................................................................................................................ 63
7－5 Country of birth of the first authors ................................................................................... 66
7－6 Diversity of Authors in Research Team .............................................................................. 67
7－7 Women in Research Team ................................................................................................... 71
8 INPUTS FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS .................................................................................................. 72
8－1 Time Between Research Project Conception and the Focal Paper Submission ............... 72
8－2 Labor Input for Research Projects ...................................................................................... 75
8－3 Amount of Money Spent for Research Projects .................................................................. 77
8－4 Sources of Funds for Research Projects ............................................................................. 80
9 OUTPUTS AND IMPACTS OF THE RESEARCH PROJECTS ................................................................... 85
9－1 Number of Refereed Papers from Research Projects ......................................................... 85
9－2 Graduate Education through the Research Project........................................................... 87
9－3 Patent Application, License Agreement or Patent Assignment ........................................ 89
9－4 Establishment of Start-up Company and Contribution to the Standardization ............. 93i9－5 Summary of the Output of Research Projects .................................................................... 95
10 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 96
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 100

iiSummary
This paper reports the initial findings from large scale surveys of the scientists based in Japanand the US on the knowledge creation process in science from a comparative perspective. The
survey in Japan was jointly conducted by the Institute of Innovation Research (IIR) of
Hitotsubashi University and the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP)
from the end of 2009 to the summer 20101. The survey in the US was implemented by the
Georgia Institute of Technology, in collaboration with IIR and NISTEP, from autumn 2010 to early
2011. It collected around 2,100 responses from scientists in Japan and 2,300 responses fromscientists in the US on their research projects that generated the scientific papers subjected to thesurveys.
Roughly one-third of the sample are from highly cited papers (top 1% in the world, H papers
hereafter) in each science field and the rest are from randomly selected papers (N papers
hereafter). We call the research projects that yielded H (N) papers H (N) projects. The
population of the survey was articles and letters in the Web of Science database of Thomson
Reuters. The response rate was 27% in Japan and 26% in the US. The survey covered allscientific fields, including social sciences. For our US-Japan comparison, we have adjusted thefield composition differences of the two countries, using the field composition in the world as thebaseline, since physical sciences have larger shares in Japan than in the US (the share of all
physical sciences is 58% in Japan, compared with 47% in the US). The survey characterized the
motivations of the research projects; the knowledge sources which inspired the projects;
uncertainty in the knowledge creation process; research competition; composition of the research
team; sources of research funding; the research outputs, including papers, patents, and licenses;
and the profile of scientists.
Major findings are as follow:
1.

2.

3.

More than 70% of the responding scientists belong to higher education institutions in bothcountries (73% of the H papers in Japan and 76% of the H papers in the US); 10% to 20% of
the respondents belong to pubic research organizations (higher in Japan); and around 5% of
the respondents belong to private firms in both countries.
Japanese respondents are younger: as for submission age, the average ages of respondents
in the natural sciences are 42.8 (H papers) and 43.7 (N papers) in the Japanese sample; and45.6 (H papers) and 46.7 (N papers) in the US sample. Around 90% of respondents (89% inJapan and 92% in the US) had doctoral degrees when the research was launched. Japanese
respondents are as mobile across organizations as US respondents, controlling for age.
Pasteur’s quadrant (both “Pursuit of fundamental principles/understandings” and “Solving
specific issues in real life” are very important motivations) occupies a significant part ofscientific research in both countries. Among H projects, the share in Pasteur’s quadrant is

1

There is a corresponding Japanese Working Paper with detailed statistical tables, published in November 2010
on which this paper is based (available fromhttp://www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp/iir-w3/file/WP10-07NagaokaIgamiEtoIjichi.pdf).

3

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.
11.

12.

more than twice as high in the US than in Japan (33% vs. 15%).
Bohr’s quadrant (only “Pursuit of fundamental principles/understandings” is very
important) accounts for the largest share of research projects; 45% (35%) of the H (N)projects in Japan and 46% (42%) of H (N) projects in the US. Edison’s quadrant (only“Solving specific issues in real life” is very important) accounts for 15% (16%) of the H (N)projects in Japan and 11% (15%) of the H (N) projects in the US.
Research involves very substantial uncertainty in both countries. Both the main result of
the paper and the research process were as initially expected or planned only for 11% of the
H papers in Japan and 14% in the US (17% of the N papers in both countries). Research
process uncertainty is high in Pasteur's and Bohr’s quadrants in both countries.
In both countries, the research output of the paper often found answers to questions not
originally posed, that is, serendipity in the sense of (Stephan (2010)) occurred. H papers
involve more serendipity and a serendipitous output is more often observed in a research
project involving more process uncertainty in both countries. Thus, scientific research not
only yields the results (sometimes more than expected) to the original questions but also
those to the questions not originally posed. Appreciating such option value would be
important for scientific research funding.
In both countries, most researchers recognize the extent of research competition ex-ante(only a minority chose “don’t know”). A significant number of researchers were concernedwith priority loss (more than 50% of the researchers in Japan and 23% of them in the US for
H papers). Such concern is stronger in H projects than in N projects. It increases with thenumber of competitors recognized ex-ante. Priority threat is seen as greater in Japan than in
the US.
By far, the most important knowledge source for suggesting the research project is scientific
literature in both countries. Colleagues in the organization (a university, a laboratory, etc.),
visiting researchers or post-doctoral students in the organization and past researchcollaborators follow scientific literature in both countries. The locations of the important
knowledge sources are often domestic (exceeding 60%) for the US scientists, while they areoften abroad for Japanese scientists, except for the knowledge sources embodied inresearchers and facilities.
Research is more actively managed in H projects than in N projects in both countries:
ambitious goal setting, information sharing and discussions in a team, division of researchtasks for outsourcing of a research task, improvement of facilities and program, anddevelopment of a research community
US scientists seem to make more use of research tool databases, and to engage remoteresearchers, using the internet, in their research projects.
Most scientific research is done by a team in both countries. The share of single authoredpapers is 3.0% in Japan and 5.4% in the US for H papers. The median author size is 6 inJapan and 5 in the US for the H papers (4 for N papers in both countries). A researcher who
provides only materials or research facilities is often added as an author in both countries,
and authorship is more expansive in Japan, which is consistent with a larger size of authors
per paper in Japan.
Young scholars (students and postdoctoral fellows) are important contributors for research
efforts in both countries. Post-doctoral students and doctoral students are often the first
4

13.
14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

authors of H papers when the order of the authors is according to their contributions inboth countries (young scholars account for 40% in Japan and 50% in the US in the case ofhigher educational institutions).
The involvement of young foreign-born scholars is important in both countries. It accounts
for more than 70% of the first authors of H papers in the US and around one-third in Japan.
Research teams have more diversified memberships in terms of specialized academic fields,
specialized skills, origins of birth and types of sectors in H papers than in N papers in bothcountries. The US teams are significantly more diversified in the origins of birth than theJapanese teams (80% of teams in the US involve researchers from more than one country vs.
50% in Japan for H papers). Given that international co-authorship in terms of the locationsof affiliated organizations of the US is only modestly larger than that of Japan (24% in Japanand 29% in the US in 2005 – 2007), the above difference largely reflects the inflow offoreign-born scholars in the US.
The time-lag between the conception of the research project and its launch is mostly a year
or less in both countries but has a longer tail in Japan. Time-lag between the launch of the
project and the submission of the focal paper is shorter for H project than for N project andshorter in the US.
In terms of the median of the total labor input per project in natural sciences, the projects inJapan spend about 3 times as much as those in the US in both H and N projects. The
median number of papers published per project is also roughly 3 times larger in Japan thanin the US, suggesting that the concept of “project” is interpreted or defined more narrowly
in the US than in Japan. In addition, the research projects in the US are significantly moremoney intensive than those in Japan. However, some of this difference is due to accounting
practices in the two countries (e.g., the extent to which the grant includes all the direct andindirect costs of research).
H projects are not only large but significantly more money intensive (higher expenses
relative to man-months) than N project in Japan. The median budget of H projects is 5.0(1.8) times more than that of N projects, while the median size of man-months is only 1.4(1.5) times larger in Japan (the US).
The majority of research projects of higher education institutions in Japan were funded by a
combination of intramural and extramural sources. In contrast, more than 50% of research
projects of US universities were funded only by external sources. On the other hand, inpublic research institutions, about a half of research projects in the US are conducted using
only intramural fund, while only about one-sixth to a quarter of research projects in Japanare.
Mission-oriented programs account for a significantly larger share of the research funding
in the US than in Japan (43% (22%) of the H projects on the simple average and 50% (38%)
on the weighted average in the US (Japan)). Industry accounts for a relatively small andsimilar shares of funding in both countries (8% of the H projects in Japan vs. 9% of the H
projects in the US in the simple average). Surprisingly, industry funds a greater share of the
projects of higher educational institutions in Japan than in the US (5% of the H projects and
8% of the N projects in Japan vs. 3% of the H projects and 5% of the N projects in the US). If
we measure industry funding by the percent of projects with at least some industry funding,this contrast is even greater (As for H projects, 24% of Japanese projects have at least some
5

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

industry funding, compared to 12% of US projects).
The median number of refereed papers produced by H projects is 1.9 (1.7) times larger thanthat of N projects in Japan (the US), which is larger than the research labor input ratio but
smaller than the research money ratio between H and N projects. The distribution of thenumber of refereed papers produced from a project is highly skewed (it has a long righttail).
Educational outputs of the research projects are also important, especially training of PhDs
and postdoctoral fellows. More than 73% (59%) of H projects produced a PhD in Japan (theUS). Educational outputs are larger in H projects than in N projects in both countries. The
research projects also often produced materials and other research tools.
Research projects resulted in more patent applications in Japan than in the US (39% of the H
projects and 22% in N projects in Japan. The corresponding shares are 16% and 8% in theUS). They also resulted in more licensing or assignments of a research result in Japan (14%of the H projects and 7% of the N projects. The corresponding shares are 9% and 4%). Note,however, that the projects are more broadly defined in Japan (roughly 3 times moreman-months and published papers). H papers are more often commercialized in bothcountries. There exist significant variations across science fields: materials science,chemistry and engineering are the most commercially active fields in both countries, while
life sciences and clinical medicines are only moderately commercially active
A majority of licensing and assignment (70 to 80%) were associated with the provision of
know-how in both countries, indicating the importance of technology transfer effort on thepart of universities.
Only a relatively few research projects resulted in start-ups in both countries (2% of the H
projects in Japan and 4% of the H projects in the US).

The paper also discusses the implications of these research findings on research on researchand on science policy.

6

1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
Developing systematic and objective data on the knowledge creation process in science at
project level has become very important, given that science is expected to play an important rolein the innovation process of a nation and the knowledge creation process in science has become
more complex in recent years. Science has increasing become teamwork, requiring variety ofskills, knowledge and research equipments have become more expensive, while scientificcompetition has become more global. Active researches based on the bibliographic information
have been being conducted in recent years (see for an example, Wuchty, Jones, and Uzzi (2007)
and Jones, Wuchty and Uzzi (2008)). However, the information one can retrieve from thebibliographic information is limited. The bibliographic information does not provide theinformation about motivation for the research project, external knowledge sources that inspired
the research project, the history of the research project, research funding, and research outputs
and impacts. As one will later see, authors are often not researchers and researchers are often
not authors.
The Institute of Innovation Research of Hitotsubashi University and the National Institute of
Science and Technology Policy of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology have decided to jointly carry out the “Survey on the Knowledge Creation Process inScience”. The purpose of this survey is to collect the objective data that show structuralcharacteristics in the knowledge creation process in science and the process of creating
innovation from scientific knowledge based on comprehensive questionnaire surveys forresearchers in all fields of science both in Japan and in the United States (more than seventhousand researchers each in the two countries). Japanese survey was conducted from the endof 2009 to the early summer of 2010 and about 2,100 researchers responded to the survey. The
survey in the United States was implemented from the autumn of 2010 to March 2011, in
collaboration with Georgina Institute of Technology and about 2,300 researchers responded to thesurvey. This report covers the initial comparative findings from the two surveys.
The survey tries to answer the following basic questions about scientific research. The
structural understandings of these issues will be valuable for designing of science policy, too.
1.

2.

3.
4.
5.
6.

What percentage of research projects conducted by researchers is in pure basic research(“Bohr’s quadrant” in the classification of Stokes), use-inspired basic research (Pasteur’squadrant), and pure applied research (Edison’s quadrant)?
How long does it take from the conceiving of the research projects to internationallyrecognized research outputs? What kind of research funds do researchers rely on in the
research project?
To what extent do researchers recognize ex-ante the status of global competition in researchand how seriously are concerned over priority loss?
How important is the serendipity in research and which kind of research is more likely tospawn the serendipity?
To what extent research teams are interdisciplinary and international? How frequent do
researcher move across the organizations?
What kind of research management was implemented in research projects?
7

7.
8.

What percentage of the research outputs result in patents and how frequently the provisionof knowhow is involved? What about the production of the research tools.
What kinds of commercialization paths are pursued in the innovation processes based on the
outputs of scientific research?

We have constructed comprehensive and standardized micro-data set from the two surveys,
covering the characteristics of research projects, the composition of the research team, researchfunding used in the research projects, external knowledge sources that inspired the research
project, serendipities in the research projects, outputs yielded by the research projects among
others. This report summarizes the basic findings from comparative tabulation of the survey
results of Japan and the US.
The rest of the paper consists of the following 9 sections. Section 2 provides an overview of thesurvey method. Section 3 provides the characteristics of the focal papers. Section 4 provides
the results of the survey on the motivations for the research and uncertainty in research both in
the process and in the output. Section 5 discusses the results on research competition. Section
6 discusses the results on knowledge sources and research management. Section 7 discusses thecharacteristics of research teams, based on the survey results on the authors of the focal paper.
Section 8 discusses the results on the labor and the other inputs for research projects. Section 9
discusses the outputs and the channels of impacts of the research projects on industrial
innovation. Section 10 concludes.

8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research has been being conducted in collaboration between Institute of Innovation
Research (IIR) of Hitotsubashi University and National Institute of Science and Technology Policy(NISTEP) as a part of “Industry-university-government joint research on the innovation process”
with support of Special Funds for Education and Research of The Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology. This work has also been supported by JSPS KAKENHI 21243020．
Georgia Institute of Technology implemented the survey in the US in collaboration with IIR and
NISTEP. The National Science Foundation of the United States supported the US-Japan
Workshop on Scientific Collaboration and Productivity in March 2010. We would like to thankfor the supports from these funding Ministry and organizations.
We would like to also thank those who provided comments and suggestions to the project atvarious stages of the research. In particular, we would like to thank the researchers who kindly
became subject to pre-testing and provided very useful comments to the design of questionnaires
and Terutaka Kuwahara, the director of the NISTEP, who provided strong supports to the project.
The research team of this project consists of the following.
Sadao NAGAOKA(PI)

Masatsura IGAMI

Manabu ETO
Tomohiro IJICHI

Hideo OWAN
Makoto NIREI
Hiroshi SHIMIZU
Paula E. STEPHAN

Professor, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi
University
Affiliated Fellow, National Institute of Science and Technology
Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology
Research Counselor, Research Institute of Economy, Trade andIndustry
Senior Research Fellow, National Institute of Science andTechnology Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology
Specially Appointed Associate Professor, Institute of Innovation
Research, Hitotsubashi University
Professor, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi
University
Professor, Faculty of Innovation Studies, Seijo University
Visiting Researcher, Institute of Innovation Research,
Hitotsubashi University
Affiliated Fellow, National Institute of Science and Technology
Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology
Professor, Institute of Social Science, the University of Tokyo
Associate Professor, Institute of Innovation Research,
Hitotsubashi University
Assistant Professor, Institute of Innovation Research,
Hitotsubashi University
Professor, Georgia State University
9

John P. WALSH

Fellow, National Bureau of Economic Research
Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology
International Affiliated Fellow, National Institute of Science andTechnology Policy, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology

102

OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY METHOD

2－1 SELECTION OF THE SURVEY TARGETS
The survey targets were selected through the following procedures. Details in the selection
process in Japanese survey were shown in the report of the Japanese survey 1 . The same
selection procedure was adopted in the US survey.
(1) Identification of possible focal papers
The population of the survey was articles and letters in the Web of Science database ofThomson Reuters. Reviews were excluded from the population. The objective of the review
papers is to conduct the survey of the existing studies, thus they are not likely to cover a research
project. The time window of the papers for the survey is from 2001 to 2006 (database year).
Database year refers to the year when the documents are recorded into the database. The
bibliographic information and the number of citations as of the end of December 2006 were usedin the survey. Two sets of the possible focal papers were selected from the population.
1.

Highly Cited Papers (approximately 3,000 in each survey)
Top 1% highly cited papers in each journal field (22 fields in total) and in each database
year; at least one organization of authors should be located in Japan for the Japanese survey
and in the US for the US survey. All highly cited papers in the time window were selected
for the Japanese survey and approximately 3,000 highly cited papers were randomly selectedfrom the highly cited papers in the US survey.

2.

“Normal” Papers (approximately 7,000 in each survey)
Randomly selected papers in each journal field and in each database year from the
population of the survey, excluding the above highly cited papers; at least one organizationof authors should be located in Japan for the Japanese survey and in the US for the US
survey.

In this report, highly cited papers are described as “H papers” and normal papers aredescribed as “N papers.” The journal field refers the 22 science fields in the Essential Science
Indicators (“ESI” hereafter) of Thomson Reuters (see Exhibit 1). We covered all fields, including
the social science, although the coverage of social science journals by the database is notcomprehensive and we have got a relatively small number of the publications by Japanese
authors in this field.
(2) Identification of possible survey targets and research projects for the survey
Corresponding authors or equivalents of approximately 20,000 possible focal papers weresearched and identified as survey targets. If multiple papers were assigned to a single author,
one paper was randomly selected as a focal paper while the priority was given to the H papers inthe selection process.
As a result, totally 7,652 survey targets were identified for Japanese survey.
1

There is a corresponding Japanese Working Paper with detailed statistical tables,
published in November 2010 on which this paper is based (available fromhttp://www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp/iir-w3/file/WP10-07NagaokaIgamiEtoIjichi.pdf).

11

Of those, thereare 1,932 researchers whose focal paper is the H paper; and there are 5,720 researchers whose
focal paper is the N paper. Totally 8,864 survey targets were identified for the US survey. Of
those, there are 2,882 researchers whose focal paper is the H paper; and there are 5,982
researchers whose focal paper is the N paper.
This report describes the research projects that are from H papers as “H projects” and describes
the research projects that are from N papers as “N projects.” The project is defined as a series ofresearch activities in which the specified focal paper and the other closely related researchoutcomes were produced.
2－2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURVEY
The questionnaire survey was conducted on the Web. A request of the cooperation to thesurvey, the web address of the questionnaire survey website, user ID, and password were sent to
the researchers by either e-mail or post mail. If a researcher recommended another researcher,
the request of cooperation was sent again to the recommended researcher. The basic time-linesof the Japanese survey and the US survey were shown below.
Japanese surveySurvey launch: December 21, 2009
Initial due date: February 7, 2010
Reminders were sent twice (mid of Jan., mid of Feb.)
Final due date: April 11, 2010

US survey

Initial mail-outs: September - November, 2010
Reminder emails: November - December, 2010
Second (final) reminders: January, 201112

2－3 FIELD CLASSIFICATION FOR THE ANALYSIS
Most results of the survey to be presented in this paper are based on 10 fields, aggregated from22 ESI journal fields. Some results are based on large 3 fields obtained by a further aggregationof the 10 fields. Natural sciences represent the aggregation of the large 3 fields. The relation
between the 22 ESI journal fields, the 10 fields, and the large 3 fields is shown in Exhibit 1.
Papers of multidisciplinary fields are reclassified into one of 21 fields based on the backward
citations of the multidisciplinary papers.

Exhibit 1 Relation between the 22 ESI journal fields, the 10 fields, and the large 3 fields

22 ESI journal fields

10 fields

Chemistry

1_Chemistry

Materials Science

2_Materials Science

Physics
Space Science
Computer Science

3_Physics&Space_Science

Mathematics

4_Computer
Science&Mathematics

Engineering

5_Engineering

Environment/Ecology

6_Environment/Ecology&Geosc
iencesGeosciences
Clinical Medicine
Psychiatry/Psychology
Agricultural Sciences
Plant & Animal Sciencelarge fields

Physical Sciences

7_Clinical
Medicine
Medicine&Psychiatry/Psychology8.1_Agricultural Sciences&Plant& Animal Science

Biology & Biochemistry
Immunology
Microbiology
Biology & Biochemistry

Life Sciences
8.2_Basic Life Sciences

Neuroscience & Behavior
Pharmacology & Toxicology
Multidisciplinary
Economics & BusinessSocial Sciences, general

Either of 22 ESI journal fields was assigned Either of 22 ESI journal fields was assigned
based on the analysis of the backward
based on the analysis of the backward
citationscitations

S_Social Sciences132－4 SECTOR CLASSIFICATION FOR THE AFFILIATION OF RESEARCHERS
The survey asked a researcher to identify the sector of the organization with which he/she wasaffiliated when the focal paper was submitted. This sector is used for analysis. The five-sector
classification shown below is used in this report.
(1) Higher education institutions(2) Public research institutions(3) Private firms(4) Private non-profit organisations(5) Others
In Japanese survey, the higher education institutions include universities, inter-university
research institutions and colleges of technology. The public research institutions include
national experimental and research institutions, independent administrative corporations forresearch, special corporations and experimental and research institutions of local governments.
In addition to the five-sectors, “Hospitals” were explicitly included in the type of organizationin the US survey. No guideline exists about the treatment of hospitals in the sector classificationin the R&D statistics, because of the differences in the healthcare system across countries. In thisreport, we incorporated the hospitals in the US surveys into the higher education institutions.
2－5 RESPONSE RATE BY FIELD
Out of 7,562 survey targets, we got 2,081 responses in the Japanese survey. The total response
rate is 27%. The response rate is 29% for the H papers and 27% for the N papers. The total
response rate in the US survey is 26%. We got 2,329 responses out of 8,864 survey targets. The
response rate is 28% for the H papers and 26% for the N papers.
The response rate in the H papers is higher than that in the N papers in both countries.
Response rate by field is shown in Exhibit 2. The fields shown in Exhibit 2 include
multidisciplinary field. In this survey, the papers of multidisciplinary field, those published in
the journals like Nature and Science, were reclassified into either of 10 fields based on thereferences in the papers. There are, however, 13 papers in Japanese survey and 78 papers in the
US survey that could not be reclassified. These papers were excluded from the analysis by field.
The response rate in both countries exceeds 30% in environment/ecology & geosciences; andagricultural sciences & plant & animal science. In additional to these fields, the response rate inJapanese survey exceeds 30% in chemistry and materials science.
The response rate in clinical medicine & psychiatry/psychology is 21% in both countries and is
the lowest among the 10 fields excluding the residual multidisciplinary field. Comparison
between H papers and N papers by field shows that the response rates in the H papers are higher
than or equal to those in the N papers in almost all fields.

14

Exhibit 2 Response rate by field(a) Japan

All Focal Papers
Surveytargets

Responded

Responserate

H papers
Surveytargets

N papers

Responded

Responserate(A)

Surveytargets

Responded

Responserate(B)(A) - (B)

1_Chemistry

837

257

30.7%

208

71

34.1%

629

186

29.6%

4.6%

2_Materials Science

472

142

30.1%

127

43

33.9%

345

99

28.7%

5.2%

1407

380

27.0%

400

127

31.8%

1007

253

25.1%

6.6%

4_Computer
Science&Mathematics

323

77

23.8%

66

16

24.2%

257

61

23.7%

0.5%

5_Engineering

707

206

29.1%

197

68

34.5%

510

138

27.1%

7.5%

6_Environment/Ecology&Geosci
ences

361

115

31.9%

81

30

37.0%

280

85

30.4%

6.7%

1278

264

20.7%

325

66

20.3%

953

198

20.8%

-0.5%

597

192

32.2%

165

60

36.4%

432

132

30.6%

5.8%

1504

404

26.9%

351

83

23.6%

1153

321

27.8%

-4.2%

9_Multidisciplinary(*)

13

2

15.4%

0

0

-

13

2

15.4%

-

S_Social Sciences

153

42

27.5%

12

2

16.7%

141

40

28.4%

-11.7%

7,652

2,081

27.2%

1,932

566

29.3%

5,720

1,515

26.5%

2.8%

3_Physics&Space_Science

7_Clinical
Medicine&Psychiatry/Psychology8.1_Agricultural Sciences&Plant& Animal Science
8.2_Basic Life Sciences

Total(b) USAll Focal Papers
Surveytargets

Responded

Responserate

H papers
Surveytargets

N papers

Responded

Responserate(A)

Surveytargets

Responded

Responserate(B)(A) - (B)

1_Chemistry

663

184

27.8%

204

66

32.4%

459

118

25.7%

6.6%

2_Materials Science

261

72

27.6%

82

22

26.8%

179

50

27.9%

-1.1%

3_Physics&Space_Science

993

259

26.1%

347

96

27.7%

646

163

25.2%

2.4%

4_Computer
Science&Mathematics

508

131

25.8%

165

39

23.6%

343

92

26.8%

-3.2%

5_Engineering

571

162

28.4%

186

57

30.6%

385

105

27.3%

3.4%

6_Environment/Ecology&Geosci
ences

522

193

37.0%

183

68

37.2%

339

125

36.9%

0.3%

2165

446

20.6%

718

155

21.6%

1447

290

20.0%

1.5%

508

157

30.9%

181

60

33.1%

327

97

29.7%

3.5%

1954

506

25.9%

602

159

26.4%

1352

348

25.7%

0.7%

9_Multidisciplinary(*)

78

11

14.1%

2

0

0.0%

76

11

14.5%

-14.5%

S_Social Sciences

641

208

32.4%

212

76

35.8%

429

132

30.8%

5.1%

8,864

2,329

26.3%

2,882

798

27.7%

5,982

1,531

25.6%

2.1%

7_Clinical
Medicine&Psychiatry/Psychology8.1_Agricultural Sciences&Plant& Animal Science
8.2_Basic Life Sciences

Total

Note1: (*) Papers in multidisciplinary field that could not be reclassified.

15

2－5－1 Field Composition of the Respondents
The field composition of the respondents is shown in Exhibit 3. The exhibit shows the resultsof the all respondents and social sciences are excluded from the total. In Japan, the fields related
to physical sciences account for 58% and the fields related to life sciences account for 42% of thetotal. In contrast, the former accounts for 47% and the latter accounts for 53% of the total in the
US survey. The results exemplify the dissimilarity in the national portfolio in the scientificactivities. Japan put more emphasis on physical sciences compared to the US.
Since the activities in the research projects varies across the fields of science, the international
comparison between Japan and US should be done after eliminating the influence of thedissimilarity in the field composition. In order to adjust the differences in the field composition,
we adopted the field composition in the world as the baseline. Weighted natural sciences in thisreport represents results in which each respondent’s answer were weighted in order to adjust thefield composition in Japanese (or the US) samples to the field composition in the world.

Exhibit 3 Field composition of the respondents in natural sciences

Physical sciences, 58% Life sciences, 42%
1.ChemistryJapan

13% 7%

19% 4%10% 6% 13% 9%20%

2.Materials Science
3.Physics & Space Science
4.Computer Science & Mathematics

Physical sciences, 47% Life sciences, 53%

5.Engineering
6.Environment/Ecology & Geosciences

US

9%3% 12% 6% 8% 9%

21%

7%

24%

7.Clinical Medicine & Psychiatry/Psychology
8.1.Agriculture Science
8.2.Basic Life Science0%

Note1:

20%

40%

60%

80%

Results of all respondents. Social sciences are excluded from the total.

16

100%

2－6 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS
2－6－1 Age
Exhibit 4 summarizes the age distribution of the respondents, at the time when the survey was
conducted (2010) and when the focal paper was submitted. There exist around 7 years’ difference
between the two average ages, which reflect both the lag between the submission and the
publication as well as that between the publication and the survey.
Average ages of respondents in natural sciences when the survey was conducted are 50.3 (Hpapers) and 51.3 (N papers) in Japanese samples and 53.4 (H papers) and 54.4 (N papers) in the
US samples. The average ages are approximately 3 years higher in the US samples compared toJapanese samples in both H and N papers.
As for the submission age, the average ages of respondents in natural sciences are 42.8 (Hpapers) and 43.7 (N papers) in Japanese samples; and 45.6 (H papers) and 46.7 (N papers) in the
US samples. The average ages of both types of papers at the submission are about 7 years
younger compared to the average age when the survey was conducted, i.e., average ages in 2010.
The focal papers were published between 2001 and 2006. Considering around one year time-lag
between the submission and the publication of the focal papers, it could be said that there would
be 5 - 10 years time-lag between the submission of the focal papers and 2010. This will explain
the differential between the average ages of respondents when the focal paper was submitted andwhen the survey was conducted. The ratio of respondents whose age is 34 or less is relatively
high in physics & space science and computer science & mathematics in both Japanese and the
US samples.

17

Exhibit 4 Age distribution of respondents(a) Ages when the survey was conducted, Japan

Nat_Sci_H(Weighted) 2%
Nat_Sci_N(Weighted) 2%

26%
22%

39%
40%

23%
1_Chem_H(71) 3%
18%
1_Chem_N(185)2_Mat_H(43)2_Mat_N(99)

5%

30%
42%
40%

23%

3_Phys&Space_H(127)3_Phys&Space_N(253)

6%

39%
29%

4_Comp&Math_H(16)4_Comp&Math_N(61)

13%
5%

30%

5_Eng_H(66) 5%
5_Eng_N(138) 2%

33%

31%

34%

23%
23%

44%
49%

8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_H(60) 2%
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_N(132) 2%

27%
24%

40%
34%

22%
8.2_Basic_Life_H(83) 1%
14%
8.2_Basic_Life_N(320)S_Social_H(2)
S_Social_N(40)

10%
0%

- 24

23%

10%

29%

30%

35 - 4440%

50%

45 - 54

6%
2%
11%
7%

30%

8%

27%
22%

5%
9%

23%

5%
8%

35%

60%

70%

55 - 64

6%
4%

27%
30%

38%

20%

25 - 34

5%
9%

21%
36%

49%

42%

24%
21%
13%
30%

43%
34%

7_Clin_Med&Psy_H(66)
7_Clin_Med&Psy_N(197) 2%

9%
9%

38%

33%

30%

17%
11%
14%

31%

32%
34%

20%
26%

7%
7%

28%
28%

36%

30%
25%

6_Env/Eco&Geo_H(30) 7%
6_Env/Eco&Geo_N(85) 2%

24%
28%

23%

8%

80%

90% 100%

65 -(b) Ages when the survey was conducted, US
Nat_Sci_H(Weighted) 2%
Nat_Sci_N(Weighted) 2%

18%
18%

33%
32%

15%
1_Chem_H(65)1_Chem_N(116) 2% 18%

28%
31%

25%
2_Mat_H(20)2_Mat_N(47) 4% 13%

32%
30%

50%

30%

3_Phys&Space_H(93) 8%
3_Phys&Space_N(150) 4%

30%
31%

30%
27%

4_Comp&Math_H(37) 3%
4_Comp&Math_N(84) 7%

32%
32%

32%
23%

15%
18%

32%
26%

25%
23%

30%

20%
23%
28%

19%

5%

19%

14%
23%

19%
15%

4%

5_Eng_H(51) 2%
5_Eng_N(92) 2%

29%
20%

39%

33%

24%
22%

12%
17%

6_Env/Eco&Geo_H(67) 3%
6_Env/Eco&Geo_N(123) 2%

27%
21%

33%
36%

25%
27%

12%
14%

9%
13%

7_Clin_Med&Psy_H(149)
7_Clin_Med&Psy_N(276)

36%
34%

8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_H(57) 4%5%17%
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_N(95) 5%30%

8.2_Basic_Life_H(155) 1% 17%
8.2_Basic_Life_N(337) 1% 13%

- 24

10%
25 - 34

42%

28%
34%
32%

28%
S_Social_H(71) 1%
16%
S_Social_N(125)
0%

39%
35%

34%

20%

30%

35 - 44

18

39%

19%
11%

33%
34%

14%
20%

30%

40%
45 - 54

15%
18%

27%
34%

50%

60%

70%

55 - 64

65 -

14%
17%
80%

90% 100%

(c) Ages when the focal paper was submitted, Japan

Nat_Sci_H(Weighted)
Nat_Sci_N(Weighted)

18%
17%

1_Chem_H(70)1_Chem_N(177)

14%
11%

40%
37%

33%
34%

2_Mat_H(43)2_Mat_N(91)

28%
16%

3_Phys&Space_H(123)
3_Phys&Space_N(241)

29%
24%

5_Eng_H(64) 2%
5_Eng_N(135)

49%

35%

34%

17%
16%
12%

31%

39%

25%

44%
32%

23%
22%

27%

6_Env/Eco&Geo_H(30)
6_Env/Eco&Geo_N(84)

20%
20%

7_Clin_Med&Psy_H(65)7_Clin_Med&Psy_N(193)
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_H(60)
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_N(128)12%
16% 1%

22%

10%
15% 1%

19%
27%

6%
7%
11% 2%
13%

30%
38%

47%
26%

3%
14% 1%

14%
17%

40%
44%

38%
31%

12%
17%

50%
36%

S_Social_H(2)
S_Social_N(38)

38%

10%

20%

25 - 3430%

35 - 44

8%
18%

36%

6%
14% 2%

26%

13%

39%

37%
40%

50%

45 - 5460%

70%

55 - 64

6%2%
7%

30%

27%

45%

24%
0%

38%

1%
2%

25%
38%

13%
8%

- 24

9%
12%

34%
37%

31%
32%

4_Comp&Math_H(16)4_Comp&Math_N(59) 2%

8.2_Basic_Life_H(80)8.2_Basic_Life_N(309)

32%
32%

80%

90% 100%

65 -(d) Ages when the focal paper was submitted, US
Nat_Sci_H(Weighted)
Nat_Sci_N(Weighted)

15%
15%

29%
29%

36%
32%

1_Chem_H(58)
1_Chem_N(98)

10%
14%

24%
29%

41%
36%

13%
2_Mat_H(16)2%2_Mat_N(41) 2%
3_Phys&Space_H(91)3_Phys&Space_N(136)
4_Comp&Math_H(32)
4_Comp&Math_N(74) 1%
5_Eng_H(37) 3%
5_Eng_N(79)

30%
21%

28%
36%

31%

20%

27%
27%

17%

15%
9%

8.2_Basic_Life_H(140)
8.2_Basic_Life_N(307)0%10%25 - 34

32%

27%

10%1%
7%

27%

30%

16%
14%
30%

35 - 44

27%

21%
19%

45 - 54

19%
21%

3%
7%

60%

70%

55 - 64

65 -

3%
6%

18%
19%
3%
80%

In each field, the upper figure is for the H papers and the lower figure is for the N papers.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H papers was not shown due to the small number of responses.

19

5%
5%

21%
4%
16% 2%

36%

30%
32%
50%

14%

6%
5%

10% 3%
19%
4%

34%
36%

40%

18%

37%
22%

48%

32%

30%
20%

13%
10%

19%
16%

27%

9%
8%

19%
27%

43%
39%

30%
28%

25%
16%

S_Social_H(60)
S_Social_N(109)

- 24

34%

24%

35%
36%

6%
9%

10%
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_H(52)8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_N(88) 1% 13%

Note1:
Note2:

30%

16%
13%

24%

32%
29%

16%
19%

6_Env/Eco&Geo_H(63)
6_Env/Eco&Geo_N(110)7_Clin_Med&Psy_H(127)
7_Clin_Med&Psy_N(235)

56%

34%

16% 3%
18%
6%

90% 100%

2－6－2 Sector Composition of the Respondents When the Focal Paper Was Submitted
Exhibit 5 shows the sector composition of the organizations with which the respondents wereaffiliated when the focal paper was submitted. Higher education institutions (HEIs) have thelargest share in both Japanese and the US samples, followed by the public research institutions(PRIs). The share of the two sectors combined accounts for 90% of the total. It is, however,important to note that the response rates of private firms; and private and non-profit
organizations were substantially lower (by around 30 % in Japanese samples).
As for Japanese survey, the share of the public organization is more than 20% in
environment/ecology and geosciences; and agricultural sciences & plant & animal science in boththe H and N papers. The share of the public organization is very large, i.e., 42%, in agriculturalsciences & plant & animal science of the H papers. The share of the public organization is also
more than 20% in materials science and basic life sciences of the H papers. The share of theprivate firms is more than 10% in materials science; physics & space science; and engineering forin both the H and N papers.
Compared to Japanese survey, the share of the public organization in the US samples is smaller.
The public organization has 15% or more share in both H and N papers in materials science;physics & space science; and environment/ecology and geosciences. One characteristic in the US
samples is a non-negligible contribution of the private and non-profit organization in the
respondents. Their share in natural sciences is 4.3% in the H papers and 3.3% in the N papers.
Private and non-profit organization accounts for less than 1% in Japanese samples.

20

Exhibit 5 Sector of the organization with which the respondents were affiliatedwhen the focal paper was submitted(a) Japan
73%
78%

Nat_Sci_H(Weighted)
Nat_Sci_N(Weighted)

20%
14%

85%
81%

1_Chem_H(71)
1_Chem_N(185)63%

2_Mat_H(43)2_Mat_N(99)

72%
81%

4_Comp&Math_H(16)4_Comp&Math_N(61)75%

5_Eng_H(68)
5_Eng_N(138)

66%
76%

23%

14%
13% 3%
1%
1%
15%

16%

52%

8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_H(60)
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_N(132)

27%
28%

42%

7%
6% 2%

27%
27%

79%

S_Social_H(2)
S_Social_N(40)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Private firm

50%

5%2%
7%

13%

90%

Public research org.

3%
4%
1%
1%

15% 2%
13% 2%5%1%

64%
66%

8.2_Basic_Life_H(83)8.2_Basic_Life_N(321)

6%
3% 8%

15% 1%
1%
13%

10%

83%
79%

7_Clin_Med&Psy_H(66)
7_Clin_Med&Psy_N(197)

10% 2%
13%
5%

19%

89%

70%
66%

6_Env/Eco&Geo_H(30)
6_Env/Eco&Geo_N(85)

University, etc

11% 4%
14%5%82%

3_Phys&Space_H(127)3_Phys&Space_N(252)

5%
5%2%

10%
60%

70%

Private and non-profit org.

80%

Other

90%

100%

Do not know(b) US76%
81%

Nat_Sci_H(Weighted)
Nat_Sci_N(Weighted)

87%
84%

1_Chem_H(62)
1_Chem_N(107)2_Mat_H(20)2_Mat_N(46)

65%
74%

3_Phys&Space_H(89)3_Phys&Space_N(151)

70%
76%

5_Eng_H(52)5_Eng_N(90)

67%
78%

6_Env/Eco&Geo_H(62)
6_Env/Eco&Geo_N(118)

76%
71%

15%

12% 2%4%
12%
6%1%
3%
19%
3%
2%
19%
2%4%3%
9%

70%
74%

13%

76%
82%

8.2_Basic_Life_H(140)
8.2_Basic_Life_N(303)

0%

10%

20%

Public research org.

30%

Private firm

40%

5% 4%2%
4%4% 4%2%

6% 7% 4%
17%
5%2%
1%
1%

11% 2% 8% 3%
9% 2%5% 3%

90%
86%

S_Social_H(68)
S_Social_N(119)Note3:

6% 3%3%
3%3%
1%5%

79%
86%

8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_H(54)8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_N(87)

4% 4%

18%
4% 7% 1%
15%
6% 2%
88%
88%

7_Clin_Med&Psy_H(132)
7_Clin_Med&Psy_N(245)Note1:
Note2:

5% 3%
2%
3%
7% 5% 4%35%
17%

4_Comp&Math_H(34)
4_Comp&Math_N(88)University, etc

13% 4% 4%3%
10% 4%3%2%

50%

1%
1%
3%3%
1%
5% 3%2%
3%
2%
60%

70%

Private and non-profit org.

80%

Other

90%

100%

Do not know

In each field, the upper figure is for the H papers and the lower figure is for the N papers.
The higher education institutions include universities, inter-university research institutions and colleges of technology. The publicresearch institutions include national experimental and research institutions, independent administrative corporations, special
corporations and experimental and research institutions of local governments.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to a very small number of responses.

21

2－6－3 Roles of the Respondents in the Research Projects
This section summarizes 1) the role of respondents in the management and 2) the role of the
respondents in the implementation of the research project that produced the focal paper.
As shown in Exhibit 6, in natural sciences of Japanese survey, around 60% of the respondents
played the leading role in the management, i.e., the design of the research project, administrationof the research project, and application for the research grant. Including the respondents who
were a member of the research management but less than that of the leader (around 20%),
approximately 80% of respondents from both H and N projects played at least some role in the
management. As for the US samples, the figure is approximately 90% in both H and N projects.
Around 80% of the respondents in the US samples played the leading role in the management.
The share of respondents who played the leading role in the management is considerably higher
in the US samples than in Japanese samples.
Management was not necessary for a small project, although it is a minority (less than 10% in
both types of projects). The share of the response of “Management was not necessary” is large
in computer science & mathematics in both Japanese and the US samples. Our survey also
revealed that the number of authors and the amount of research funds in these two fields are
relatively small, compared to other fields, indicating that management becomes more importantas the project becomes larger and more complex.
A fairly large share of the respondents of Japanese samples (20 - 30%) did not play a
managerial role in environment/ecology and geosciences and physics & space science of the H
projects. One possible explanation of this is that many of the respondents are the researchers
who participated in the international research project led by another country. The analysis of
the international co-authorship showed that these two fields exhibit relatively high probability ofinternational co-authorship compared to other fields.
Next we look at the role of respondents in the implementation of research projects, as shown in
Exhibit 7. 60 - 70% of respondents in both Japanese and the US samples said they executed thecentral part of the research and contributed the most to the research output. Including the
respondents who took part in the central part of the research but their contribution was not as
substantial as the above central researcher; more than 80% of respondents executed the central
part of the research in both countries. Thus, we can conclude that most respondents have a very
good knowledge of the research project as well as of its management.

22

Exhibit 6 Role of respondents in the management(a) Japan
Nat_Sci_H(Weighted)
Nat_Sci_N(Weighted)

56%
62%

1_Chem_H(71)
1_Chem_N(186)65%

2_Mat_H(43)2_Mat_N(99)47%

3_Phys&Space_H(127)3_Phys&Space_N(253)

42%
50%

4_Comp&Math_H(16)4_Comp&Math_N(61)

44%

40%

66%
25%

13%

56%

30%

23%

48%

7_Clin_Med&Psy_H(66)
7_Clin_Med&Psy_N(198)

58%
64%

8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_H(60)
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_N(132)

63%
61%

30%

18%

5%

12% 2%
11% 4%

21%

13%
7%

21%

16%
7%

4%3%
8%

26%

20%

33%

13%
12% 5%

9%

14%
8%

8% 2%
10% 1%

10%

8% 2%
2%
11%

18%
25%

27%

13%

19%

7% 6%
5% 5%

30%

5%

40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
A member of the research management

No managerial role

12% 2%
9% 2%

31%
10%

7%

17%

18%

7% 2%
9% 2%

18%
3%
1%
8% 4%1%

19%
14%

20%

35%

0%
10%
20%
A leading role (PI or Co-PI)

12%
8%

22%

21%

60%
71%

8.2_Basic_Life_H(83)8.2_Basic_Life_N(321)
S_Social_H(2)
S_Social_N(40)

77%

56%
64%

5_Eng_H(68)
5_Eng_N(138)
6_Env/Eco&Geo_H(30)
6_Env/Eco&Geo_N(85)

23%
19%

90%

100%

Management was not necessary

Other(b) US
83%
78%

Nat_Sci_H(Weighted)
Nat_Sci_N(Weighted)

1_Chem_H(66)
1_Chem_N(120)78%

2_Mat_H(22)2_Mat_N(50)74%

3_Phys&Space_H(96)3_Phys&Space_N(160)

66%
55%

4_Comp&Math_H(39)
4_Comp&Math_N(91)

67%
66%

5_Eng_H(57)
5_Eng_N(105)

6_Env/Eco&Geo_H(68)
6_Env/Eco&Geo_N(126)7% 3%4%2%
10% 3% 6% 3%

91%

86%

16%
15%

13%
7%

87%

64%

21%
21%

3%
4%

9%

7%
11% 4%
9% 3% 8% 2%

18%

3% 6% 3%
1%
5% 11% 2%

7_Clin_Med&Psy_H(155)
7_Clin_Med&Psy_N(289)

90%
87%

6%1%3%
7% 2%
2%
2%

8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_H(60)
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_N(97)

83%
87%

13% 2%
2%
6% 3%2%2%

8.2_Basic_Life_H(158)
8.2_Basic_Life_N(349)

87%
86%

6% 3%3%
9% 2%
2%
2%

85%

4% 8% 3%
11% 3% 11% 2%

S_Social_H(75)
S_Social_N(136)
0%
10%
20%
A leading role (PI or Co-PI)

73%
30%

No managerial role

40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
A member of the research management
Management was not necessary

Other

Note1:
Note2:

5% 9%
2% 6% 2%

8%
11% 2%
16%
7%

8% 3%
4% 4%

70%
79%

6%2%
2%
3% 3%

15%

In each field, the upper figure is for the H papers and the lower figure is for the N papers.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.

23

90%

100%

Exhibit 7 Role of the respondents in the implementation of the research project(a) Japan
65%
69%

Nat_Sci_H(Weighted)
Nat_Sci_N(Weighted)
1_Chem_H(71)
1_Chem_N(184)

89%

63%

20%
20%

5% 5% 5%
5%2%
4%

23%

10% 1%
7% 1%6%74%72%

2_Mat_H(43)2_Mat_N(99)

16%
20%

68%
65%

3_Phys&Space_H(127)3_Phys&Space_N(253)
4_Comp&Math_H(16)4_Comp&Math_N(61)

21%
24%
81%

62%

3%3%5%
5%2%4%

43%

6_Env/Eco&Geo_H(30)
6_Env/Eco&Geo_N(85)

37%

69%

52%

7_Clin_Med&Psy_H(66)
7_Clin_Med&Psy_N(198)

23%

75%

S_Social_H(2)
S_Social_N(40)

23%

10%

20%

30%

4%1%
2%3%

5%

20%

2%5%

26%

70%
0%

16%
14%

11%
9% 6%
15%
5%3%
3%
22%

59%
63%

8.2_Basic_Life_H(83)8.2_Basic_Life_N(321)

6%
3%

13%
7%
8% 2%5%

15%

65%
72%

8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_H(60)
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_N(132)

13%

34%

78%
80%

5_Eng_H(68)
5_Eng_N(138)

2%5%2%5% 3%

11%5%2%4%

20%

Central part

40%
50%
60%
Part in the central part70%

Implemented the research under the guidance

Through the provision of materials, etc/

8%
6%

5%3%
3%

80%

90%

100%

Other

(b) US
60%
61%

Nat_Sci_H(Weighted)
Nat_Sci_N(Weighted)

22%
23%

50%
56%

1_Chem_H(66)
1_Chem_N(120)

26%
24%

45%
42%

2_Mat_H(22)2_Mat_N(50)

62%
60%

4_Comp&Math_H(39)
4_Comp&Math_N(90)

59%

65%
62%

6_Env/Eco&Geo_H(68)
6_Env/Eco&Geo_N(126)67%

7_Clin_Med&Psy_H(154)
7_Clin_Med&Psy_N(290)

73%
69%

58%

3%

81%

27%
24%

27%

1%
3%

22%

10%

20%

30%

12%

3%
1%
3%
3% 6%

3% 8%
5% 9%

16%

15%
2% 8% 3%

6%

27%

17%

11%
9%
11% 2%4%

Central part

40%
50%
60%
Part in the central part

Implemented the research under the guidance

Through the provision of materials, etc/

70%

80%

In each field, the upper figure is for the H papers and the lower figure is for the N papers.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.

24

6%

16%
16%

Other

Note1:
Note2:

21%

2%
2% 12%
5% 6%

80%
83%
0%

18%
12%

1%
2%
2%
1%
4% 10%

23%

70%

S_Social_H(75)
S_Social_N(135)

4%

33%

19%
27%

44%
50%

8.2_Basic_Life_H(157)
8.2_Basic_Life_N(350)

18%

72%

21%
15%

4%

5%

26%

5_Eng_H(57)
5_Eng_N(105)

8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_H(59)8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim_N(97)

3%

32%
42%

3_Phys&Space_H(95)
3_Phys&Space_N(163)

2% 14%
5% 10%

90%100%

2－6－4 Research Career of the Respondents
An overview of the research careers of the respondents is shown in this section. Exhibit 8
shows the distribution of the highest academic degree of the respondents when the research
project was launched. The share of the researchers with a PhD, a M. D., or a J. D. is the largest in
all sectors in both countries. As for Japanese samples, the share of respondents whose highest
degree was Master’s degree or below is large in the private firms compared to other sectors. In
the private firms for the N projects, 37% of the respondents have Master’s degrees as the highest
degree and around 10% of respondents have Bachelor’s or lower degree as the highest degree.

Exhibit 8 Highest degree of respondents when the research project was launched(a) Japan(b) US

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

83%

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

92%

5%3%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

89%

7%4%

HEIs_H(398)

92%

6%2%

HEIs_H(478)

90%

6%4%

HEIs_N(1143)

87%

7%5%

HEIs_N(968)

88%

7%5%

PRIs_H(116)

84%

15%

PRIs_H(80)

PRIs_N(214)80%

15% 3%

PRIs_N(122)7%2%

Private_firms_H(26)

96%

4%

10%

Private_firms_N(41)

98%

2%

Private_firms_H(41)66%

Private_firms_N(86)

24%

51%

0%

Note1:

8%3%

10% 7%

89%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

20%

37%

40%

60%

80%

100%

94%

4%
3%

86%

0%

20%

40%

13%

60%

80%

Ph.D./M.D./J.D (incl. doctorate paper)

Ph.D./M.D./J.D (incl. doctorate paper)

Master's degree

Master's degree

Bachelor's degree, Technical college, Junior college

Bachelor's degree, Technical college, Junior college

Other

Other

In each sector, the upper figure is for the H papers and the lower figure is for the N papers.

25

100%

As for Japanese samples, the share of respondents who won a distinguished paper award or aconference award from an academic society is higher in the H projects than in the N projects in
the HEIs and the private firms. About 60% of the respondents of the H papers in the HEIs won
the award (Exhibit 9(a)). The respondents’ award-winning experience does not show big
difference by type of project and by sector in the US samples (Exhibit 9(b)).

In the HEIs, the share of the respondents who served on an editorial board of an international
journal is larger in the H projects, compared to those in the N projects, in both Japanese and the
US samples (Exhibit 10). In the private firms, respondents with experience on an editorial boardof an international journal are more common in the US samples.

A striking difference in respondents’ experiences of staying in abroad by cohort was found. In
Japanese samples, more than 70% of respondents at age 45 or over stayed in abroad for one year
or more before the initiation of the project (All sectors in Exhibit 11(b)). The share of such
respondents is approximately 30% smaller for the respondents younger than age 45 (Exhibit
11(a)). In contrast, the international mobility of the US respondents is seemingly higher in theyounger cohort. The share of respondents who stayed in abroad for one year or more is around
40% and 30% for respondents at age under 45 and at age 45 or over, respectively (All sectors in
Exhibit 12).

Younger cohort is more mobile in terms of cross-organizational mobility in both Japanese andthe US samples (Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 14). The difference by cohort is more clearly noted in the
US samples. Mobility of researchers in the private firm differs across country. As for the US
samples, the share of respondents who experienced the cross-organizational movement in thepreceding five years is more than 50% for respondents at age under 45 in the US samples (Private
firms in Exhibit 14(a)). The share of such respondents is approximately 20% in Japanese samples(Private firms in Exhibit 13(a)).

26

Exhibit 9 Respondents who won a distinguished paper award or a conference award
from an academic society(a) Japan(b) US

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

54%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

46%

45%

HEIs_H(394)

55%

59%

HEIs_N(1135)

30%

70%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

30%

70%

41%

47%

53%

HEIs_H(468)

31%

69%

HEIs_N(938)

29%

71%

PRIs_H(116)

39%

61%

PRIs_H(80)

25%

75%

PRIs_N(214)

42%

58%

PRIs_N(117)

22%

78%

56%

Private_firms_H(26)

19%

81%

Private_firms_H(41)44%

Private_firms_N(86)

22%

0%

Private_firms_N(41)

78%

20%

40%

Yes

Note1:

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

60%

80%

100%

27%

0%

No

73%

20%

40%

Yes

60%

80%

100%

No

In each sector, the upper figure is for the H papers and the lower figure is for the N papers

Exhibit 10 Respondents who served on an editorial board of an international journal(a) Japan(b) US

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

43%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

HEIs_H(395)

PRIs_H(116)

26%

74%

PRIs_H(81)

PRIs_N(214)

28%

72%

PRIs_N(117)

62%

48%

HEIs_N(948)

61%

52%

38%

HEIs_H(470)

55%

39%

48%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

65%

45%

HEIs_N(1134)

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

57%

35%

52%

39%

61%

37%

63%

24%

76%

Private_firms_H(40)

15%

85%

Private_firms_H(26)

31%

69%

Private_firms_N(86)

16%

84%

Private_firms_N(40)

33%

68%

0%

Yes

Note1:

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No

0%

Yes

In each sector, the upper figure is for the H papers and the lower figure is for the N papers

27

20%

40%

60%

No

80%

100%

Exhibit 11 Respondents who stayed in abroad for one year or more for study or research by age, Japan(a) Under 45(b) Over 45

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

43%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

57%

37%

25%

68%

32%

HEIs_H(220)

43%

57%

HEIs_H(166)

75%

25%

HEIs_N(542)

39%

61%

HEIs_N(549)

71%

29%

58%

PRIs_H(35)

PRIs_H(80)43%

PRIs_N(136)

30%

14%

86%

Private_firms_H(9)Private_firms_N(57)

11%

89%

Private_firms_N(28)

0%

20%

40%

Yes

60%

71%

PRIs_N(69)70%

Private_firms_H(29)Note1:

75%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

63%

80%

100%

41%

22%

78%

32%

0%

No

29%

59%

20%

68%

40%

Yes

60%

80%

100%

No

In each sector, the upper figure is for the H papers and the lower figure is for the N papers

Exhibit 12 Respondents who stayed in abroad for one year or more for study or research by age, US(a) Under 45(b) Over 45

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

37%

63%

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

29%

71%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

34%

66%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

26%

74%

HEIs_H(195)

37%

63%

HEIs_H(206)

31%

69%

HEIs_N(372)

36%

64%

HEIs_N(457)

27%

73%

PRIs_H(35)26%

PRIs_N(50)Private_firms_H(13)

66%

62%

Private_firms_N(20)

Yes

20%

60%

22%

78%

PRIs_N(60)

22%

78%

27%

Private_firms_N(12)

60%

40%

PRIs_H(41)Private_firms_H(11)

38%

40%

0%

Note1:

74%

34%

80%

100%

No

0%

Yes

In each sector, the upper figure is for the H papers and the lower figure is for the N papers

28

73%

17%

83%

20%

40%

60%

No

80%

100%

Exhibit 13 Respondents who changed academic or research positions across organizationsin the preceding five years by age, Japan(a) Under 45(b) Over 45

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

48%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

HEIs_H(219)All_sectors_H(Weighted)

52%

39%

49%
40%

60%

HEIs_N(552)

PRIs_H(80)

40%

60%

PRIs_H(35)

PRIs_N(135)

41%

59%

PRIs_N(69)Private_firms_H(29)

17%

83%

Private_firms_H(9)Private_firms_N(57)

19%

81%

Private_firms_N(28)

20%

40%

Yes

Note1:

60%

80%

100%

74%

35%

65%

27%

73%

37%

63%

28%

72%

11%

89%

25%

0%

No

65%

26%

HEIs_H(167)51%

HEIs_N(541)

0%

35%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

61%

20%

75%

40%

Yes

60%

80%

100%

80%

100%

No

In each sector, the upper figure is for the H papers and the lower figure is for the N papers

Exhibit 14 Respondents who changed academic or research positions across organizationsin the preceding five years by age, US(a) Under 45(b) Over 45

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

44%

56%

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

26%

74%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

46%

54%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

26%

74%

HEIs_H(193)

43%

57%

HEIs_H(212)

27%

73%

HEIs_N(370)

48%

52%

HEIs_N(460)

24%

76%

PRIs_H(34)

41%

59%

PRIs_H(41)

17%

83%

PRIs_N(48)

42%

58%

PRIs_N(61)

20%

80%

Private_firms_H(13)69%

Private_firms_N(20)

0%

Yes

Note1:

20%

Private_firms_H(11)

31%

55%

40%

60%

80%

27%

Private_firms_N(13)

45%

100%

No

0%

Yes

In each sector, the upper figure is for the H papers and the lower figure is for the N papers

29

73%

38%

20%

62%

40%

60%

No

3

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOCAL PAPERS

3－1 IMPORTANCE OF THE FOCAL PAPER IN THE FIELD
In the design of the target for this survey, we used the number of citations as a proxy tomeasure the importance of the research papers, and selected the H papers based on that measure.
The self-evaluation of respondents also supports our assumption as seen in Exhibit 15. For thisexhibit, we asked a respondent to assess the importance of the focal paper compared to the global
research findings in the same field during the same time period (published within a year before
or after the focal paper was published). H papers have significantly higher shares of being
recognized by the respondent as the research papers having relatively high self-evaluation thanthe N papers.
Looking at the H projects, 39% of respondents in Japanese samples (25% in the US samples)thought that the focal paper was one of the most important papers, ranking within the top 1% in
the world and 82% of respondents in Japanese samples (73% in the US samples) thought that the
focal papers rank within the top 10% in the world.
In contrast, 9% of respondents in Japanese samples (8% in the US samples) of the N projects
ranked the focal papers in the top 1%, 35% of respondents in Japanese samples (36% in the US
samples) ranked the focal papers in the top 10%. The share of “a relatively important paper,ranking within the top 25%” is the largest in the N papers in both Japanese and the US samples.
The Web of Science database of Thomson Reuters, from which the focal papers were sampled,collects only those academic journals that fulfill the significance criteria set by Thomson Reuters.
Thus, there is a possibility that a paper of relatively important outputs of the research project
were sampled as the focal paper of the survey even for N papers.

30

Exhibit 15 Importance of the focal paper in the global research findings(a) Japan(b) USTop 1%

39%
9%

Top 1%

25%
8%

Top10%

43%
27%

Top10%

48%
28%

Top25%

15%
34%

Top25%

23%
39%

Top 50%2%
21%

Top 50%3%
19%

Bottom half0%
7%

Bottom half

1%
6%

Other

1%
3%

Other

0%
0%

0%

10%

20%

H projects
Note1:
Note1:

30%

40%

50%

0%

10%

20%

H projects

N projects

30%

40%

N projects

The self-evaluation of the importance of the focal paper in the global research findings in the same field during the same time period(published within a year before or after the focal paper was published).
The weighted result of natural sciences.

31

50%

MOTIVATIONS FOR THE RESEARCH PROJECT AND UNCERTAINTIESIN RESEARCH
4

4－1 MOTIVATIONS FOR THE RESEARCH PROJECT
According to Stokes (1997), the traditional framework to place a research along one dimension
from basic research to applied research is incomplete, since research often has dual motivations.
Stokes proposed the “quadrant model of scientific research”. In this model a Pasteur’s quadrant
covers such “use-inspired basic research” exemplified by the research by Pasteur, while Bohr’s
quadrant covers pure basic research and Edison’s quadrant covers pure applied research.
Adopting this framework, we asked each researcher to evaluate the importance of the following
two basic motivations for initiating the research project that yielded the focal paper and the otherclosely related papers: (1) pursuit of fundamental principles/understandings and (2) solving
specific issues in real life. “Pursuit of fundamental principles/understandings” is defined to begaining a new knowledge of the principles, underlying natural phenomenon and observed facts,
through experiments and/or theoretical analyses and “solving specific issues in real life” isdefined to be solving practical and specific problems such as for industrial applications, following
Frascati Manual of OECD.
Collecting response to this question on two motivations at project level has allowed us toquantitatively assess how important each quadrant is in each scientific field. Such information
would be very important, since the Pasteur’s quadrant may play an important bridge between
science research and engineering research (Stokes (1997)). As far as we know, there is no
systematic quantitative evidence available for the importance of Pasteur’s quadrant (see however,Comroe and Dripps (1976), for a very detailed study on the key papers for open-heart surgery
from this perspective).
Exhibit 16 the aggregate results of the H projects for Japan and the US. 60% of the researchersfor H projects, that is, the projects which produced the top 1% highly cited papers, in Japan regard
the pursuit of fundamental principles/understandings as a very important motivation for the
project, while the corresponding share is 79% in the US. 30% of the researchers for H projects inJapan regard solving specific issues in real life as very important motivations for the project, while
the corresponding share was 44% in the US. The projects for which both motivations are very
important amount to 15% and 33% of the H projects in Japan and the US. Thus, even if we define“Pasteur’s quadrant” relatively narrowly as the group of the projects for which both motivations
are very important (not just important), it constitutes a significant share of the research projects inthe two countries, especially in the US. If we define “Bohr’s quadrant” as a group of the projects
where only “pursuit of fundamental principles/understandings” is very important, it covers 45%
and 46% of the H projects in Japan and the US. If we define “Edison’s quadrant” as a group of
the projects where only “solving specific issues in real life” is very important, it covers 15% and
11% of the H projects in Japan and the US respectively. Thus, “Bohr’s quadrant” as well as“Edison’s quadrant” is of similar size in the two countries and “Bohr’s quadrant” is the mostimportant, while “Pasteur’s quadrant” is much smaller in Japan
According to Exhibit 17, the similar patterns can be identified for N projects. “Pasteur’squadrant” is important especially in the US (26% of the projects) and it is less important in Japan32

(8% in Japan). “Bohr’s quadrant” is most important among the three quadrants in bothcountries. “Edison’s quadrant” is of similar size in the two countries. The level of motivation isstronger in H projects than in N projects for the two objectives, but especially for “pursuit offundamental principles/understandings”.

Exhibit 16 Distribution of the projects by a quadrant model, H projects

Note1:(b) USA

25%

15%

40%

70%

30%

100%

Very important

60%

total

46%

33%

79%

Other

15%

Solving specific issues in real life
Other
Very important

9%

11%

21%

total

45%

Pursuit of fundamental
principles/understandings

Very important

total

Other

Solving specific issues in real life
Other
Very important

total

Pursuit of fundamental
principles/understandings(a) Japan

56%

44%

100%

The weighted result of natural sciences.

Exhibit 17 Distribution of the projects by a quadrant model, N projects

Note1:(b) USA

41%

16%

57%

76%

24%

100%

The weighted result of natural sciences.

33

Very important

43%

total

42%

26%

67%

Other

8%

Solving specific issues in real life
Other
Very important

17%

15%

33%

total

35%

Pursuit of fundamental
principles/understandings

Very important

total

Other

Solving specific issues in real life
Other
Very important

total

Pursuit of fundamental
principles/understandings(a) Japan

59%

41%

100%

There are significant variations in the importance of “Pasteur’s quadrant” by field, as shown in
Exhibit 18 for H projects. This exhibit sorts the scientific field by the share of “Pasteur’squadrant” in the US (except for social science). “Pasteur’s quadrant” is especially important inclinical medicine & psychiatry/psychology in both countries. In the US, it is close to 50%. It isalso relatively important in engineering in the two countries. “Pasteur’s quadrant” is importantin materials science only next to clinical medicine & psychiatry/psychology in Japan (but not in
the US), while it is important in agricultural sciences & plant & animal science only next toclinical medicine & psychiatry/psychology in the US (but not in Japan). “Pasteur’s quadrant” issignificantly more important in the US than in Japan in environment/ecology & geosciences andcomputer science & mathematics too.

Exhibit 18 Pasteur’s quadrant by field (% yes in H projects), Japan vs. US

3.Physics & Space Science

15%
33%
23%
48%
5%
35%
19%
34%
13%
31%
3%
27%
21%
27%
13%
27%
6%
26%
14%
15%

S.Social Sciences

30%

Natural Sciences (weighted)
7.Clinical Medicine & Psychiatry/Psychology
8.1.Agriculture Science
5.Engineering
8.2.Basic Life Science
6.Environment/Ecology & Geosciences
2.Materials Science
1.Chemistry
4.Computer Science & Mathematics0%

Note1:
Note2:

5%

10%
Japan

15%
USA

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

In each field, the upper figure is for Japan and the lower figure is for the US.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.

These results support the Stokes’s view that placing the scientific research projects along one
dimension from “pursuit of fundamental principles/understandings” to “solving specific issues inreal life” is not adequate, since many projects are driven significantly by the two objectives.
“Pasteur’s quadrant” is more important in the US than in Japan.

34

4－2 UNCERTAINTIES IN RESEARCH PROCESS AND IN RESEARCH OUTCOME
Productive research has to add something new relative to the existing stock of knowledge anduncertainty in research can be a very important part of acquiring such novelty. There can be two
scenarios of acquiring such novelty: getting a novel research idea which is proven in the research
process as initially expected, or novelty is acquired during the course of the research due to its
uncertain process or outcome. Compared to inventions, where targeted outcome is often
important (see Nagaoka and Walsh (2009a)), uncertainty can be more important in scientificresearch. In order to clarify this, our survey asked the researcher to evaluate the importance of
uncertainty in both research process and outcome. More specifically, whether the research
project that yielded the paper proceeded as initially planned (5 point Likert Scale from “largely
the same as originally planned to “quite different than originally planned”) and whether themain result of the focal paper is more or less significant than the initial expectations of theresearchers (5 point Likert Scale from “substantially less significant than expected” to“substantially more significant than expected”).
The research proceeded as initially planned for 26% of the H papers in Japan and 39% in the US,
as seen in Exhibit 19. In addition, the main result of the focal paper was as initially expected for
25% of the H papers in Japan and 26% in the US. Thus, both the main result of the paper and theresearch process to that were as initially expected and planned only for 11% of the H papers inJapan and 14% in the US. On the other hand, 56% of the main results in Japan involved both abetter than expected result as well as research process uncertainty. The corresponding number
was 46% in the US. Exhibit 20 shows the results for the N papers. Both the main result of thepaper and the research process to that were as initially expected and planned for 17% for bothcountries. On the other hand, 40% of the main results in Japan involved both a better than
expected result and research process uncertainty. The corresponding number was 38% in the US.
Thus, most papers involved uncertainty either in outcome or in the research process and such
uncertainty is significantly higher in H papers than in N papers in both countries.
The main result of the focal paper was more than expected for 69% of the H papers and 51% of
the N papers in Japan. The corresponding shares are 72% and 59% in the US. Thus,
unexpected good outcome is a significant reason for H papers in both Japan and the US.
Moreover, a project involving unexpected research process is more likely to generate a research
output more than expected. The probability of getting a more than expected result conditionalon the research process being as planned is 50 % (=13%/26%) while the probability of getting amore than expected result conditional on the research process being different from the initialplanned is 76 % (=56%/74%) for H papers in Japan. The corresponding probabilities are 63% and
78% in the US. The similar relationship holds for N papers of both countries, although thedifference is smaller in the US. Thus, research process uncertainty is a major factor for good
research performance in both countries, indicating that uncertain research process is an
importance source of novelty.

35

Exhibit 19 Uncertainty in process and output (distribution of the main result of the focal paper), H paper(a) Japan

80%

70%
60%

More than expected
As expected
Less than expected

50%
56%
40%

30%
20%
10%
0%

13%
13%

11%
2%
Research Process: asplanned

4%
Research Process: not asplanned(b) US

80%

70%
60%

More than expected
As expected
Less than expected

50%
40%

30%

47%

25%

20%
10%
0%

Note1:

14%

12%

1%
Research Process: asplanned2%
Research Process: not asplanned

The results are not weighted by field

36

Exhibit 20 Uncertainty in process and output, N paper (distribution of the main result of the focal paper)(a) Japan

80%

70%
60%

More than expected
As expected
Less than expected

50%

40%

40%

30%
11%
20%

23%

10%

17%

0%

2%
Research Process: asplanned

7%
Research Process: not asplanned(b) US

80%

70%
60%

More than expected
As expected
Less than expected

50%
38%

40%

30%

21%

20%

Note1:

21%

10%

17%

0%

1%
Research Process: asplanned

The results are not weighted by field

37

3%
Research Process: not asplannedThere are significant differences across fields in the level of uncertainty as measured by theincidence of big surprises in the research process and the outcome. Exhibit 21 shows the shareof the research process being quite different from that originally planned by fields. The average
share for natural sciences is 6% (7%) of the H papers and 4% (6%) of N papers in Japan (the US).
In most fields, H papers involve research process uncertainty more often than N papers in thetwo countries. Exceptions are environment/ecology & geosciences and computer science &mathematics in Japan and physics & space science, engineering, and basic life sciences in the US.
Chemistry involves most frequently large research process uncertainty in the US (15% in H
papers and 10% in N papers). Chemistry is also one of those fields involving large research
process uncertainty most frequently in Japan (7% in H papers and 6% in N papers). In Japan
materials science involve the largest research process uncertainty for H papers (14% of thepapers). Engineering involves small research process uncertainty in both countries. Althoughcomputer science & mathematics involves least uncertainty in both H and N papers in Japan,such is not the case for H papers in the US.

Exhibit 21 Uncertainty in the research process, % quite difference than originally planed(a) Japan(b) USNatural Sciences (weighted)

6%4%Natural Sciences (weighted)

7%6%

1.Chemistry

7%
6%

1.Chemistry

15%
10%

2.Materials Science

14%
3%

2.Materials Science

5%2%

3.Physics & Space Science

6%6%

3.Physics & Space Science

4%6%

4.Computer Science & … 0%
3%
5.Engineering

4.Computer Science & … 5%
3%

4%
1%

5.Engineering

0%4%

6.Environment/Ecology & … 3%
6%

6.Environment/Ecology & … 9%
6%

7.Clinical Medicine & … 5%4%

7.Clinical Medicine & … 8%5%

8.1.Agriculture Science

8%3%

8.1.Agriculture Science

5%4%

8.2.Basic Life Science

7%5%

8.2.Basic Life Science

7%
8%

S.Social Sciences

3%

S.Social Sciences

0%
2%

0%
10% 20%H papers
N papers

Note1:
Note2:

30%

40%

50%

0%
10% 20%H papers
N papers

30%

40%

50%

In each field, the upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.

Exhibit 22 shows the probability of the main result of the focal paper being substantially moresignificant than expected (%). The average probability for natural sciences as a whole is 30%(33%) of the H papers and 13% (19%) of N papers in Japan (the US). Thus, it is similar acrosscountries. In all fields, H papers involve positive surprise more often than N papers in the twocountries, as expected. Top three fields which experience positive output surprise mostfrequently in H papers are physics & space science, chemistry, and basic life sciences in Japan,
and basic life sciences, material sciences and chemistry in the US. The major difference between
the two countries is computer science & mathematics, which is consistent with the above result
38

for research process uncertainty.

Exhibit 22 Uncertainty in the main result of the focal paper, % substantially more significant than expected(a) Japan(b) USNatural Sciences (weighted)

30%
13%

Natural Sciences (weighted)

33%
19%

1.Chemistry

38%
14%

1.Chemistry

38%
23%

2.Materials Science

28%
15%

2.Materials Science

41%
14%

3.Physics & Space Science

41%
15%

3.Physics & Space Science

34%
13%

4.Computer Science & … 6%
5%
5.Engineering

4.Computer Science & … 36%
20%

26%
11%

5.Engineering

25%
17%

6.Environment/Ecology & … 30%
21%

6.Environment/Ecology & … 33%
17%

7.Clinical Medicine & … 24%
9%

7.Clinical Medicine & … 26%
19%

8.1.Agriculture Science27%
9%8.1.Agriculture Science

32%
14%

8.2.Basic Life Science

36%
21%

8.2.Basic Life Science

43%
24%

S.Social Sciences

10%

S.Social Sciences

21%
14%

0%
10% 20%H papers
N papers

Note1:
Note2:

30%

40%

50%

0%
10% 20%H papers
N papers

30%

40%

50%

In each field, the upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.

Exhibit 23 analyzes the probability of the research process being quite different by the type ofthe research project. In both countries, the projects in Pasteur quadrant involve research process
uncertainty most frequently, followed by those in Bohr quadrant.
Exhibit 23 Quadrants of research motivations and research process uncertainty(% quite different research process, N projects)

10%

9%

US

8%

6%

JP
7%

6%
5%
4%

4%

2%

3% 2%

Edison

Other

2%

0%
Bohr
Note1:

Pasteur

The results are not weighted by field39

4－3 SERENDIPITY
One important research outcome due to uncertainty is a serendipitous discovery. Our survey
asked a researcher to identify whether the research output was serendipitous, that is, whether hefound the answers to the questions not originally posed. This definition of serendipity is based on
Stephan (2010) who emphasizes the importance of distinguishing “unexpected” from “accidental“. According to her, “True, Pasteur <<discovered>> bacteria while trying to solve problems thatwere confronting the French wine industry. But his discovery, although unexpected, washardly <<an accident>>.” The results are shown in the following Exhibit 24. In the US morethan 40% of the researchers for both H papers and N papers answered in an affirmative manner(49% for H papers and 42% for N papers). This frequency is higher in Japan (75% for H papers
and 65% for N papers), mainly because the US positive response for serendipity covers only thecases where the main research result of the paper was serendipitous, while the Japanese
responses covers not only those cases but also the other cases where the other (not main) research
result of the paper was serendipitous. According to a follow-up survey in Japan, if we cover
only those cases where the main research result was a result of serendipity recognized during the
research process, the probability of serendipity declines to 40 % of the papers, similar to that in
the US.
The frequency of serendipity is higher for the H paper in both countries across all fields ofnatural sciences. The frequency of serendipity is uniformly high across fields in Japan in H
papers than in N papers. It is especially high in basic life sciences. In the US, it is high incomputer science & mathematics, agriculture science and environment/ecology & geosciences.
Exhibit 24 Serendipity(a) Japan(b) USNatural Sciences (weighted)

75%
65%

Natural Sciences (weighted)

49%
42%

1.Chemistry

80%
63%

1.Chemistry

52%
45%

2.Materials Science

79%
64%

2.Materials Science

50%
38%

3.Physics & Space Science

78%
65%

3.Physics & Space Science

53%
46%

4.Computer Science & … 69%
61%
5.Engineering

4.Computer Science & … 67%
58%

71%
57%

5.Engineering

47%
40%

6.Environment/Ecology & … 73%
72%

6.Environment/Ecology & … 54%
50%

7.Clinical Medicine & … 67%
64%

7.Clinical Medicine & … 39%
36%

8.1.Agriculture Science

77%
64%

8.1.Agriculture Science

62%
43%

8.2.Basic Life Science

84%
70%

8.2.Basic Life Science

46%
43%

S.Social Sciences

63%

S.Social Sciences

36%
39%

0%
20% 40%H papers
N papers

Note1:
Note2:
Note3:

60%

80%

100%

0%
20% 40%H papers
N papers

60%

80%

100%

In each field, the upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.
The US positive response for serendipity covers only the cases where the main research result of the paper was serendipitous, while theJapanese responses covers not only those cases but also the other cases where the other (not main) research result of the paper wasserendipitous40

Serendipitous output is more often observed in a research project involving more process
uncertainty in both countries. Exhibit 25 shows the frequency of serendipity by the level ofresearch process uncertainty. When the level of research process increases from 1 (the same asoriginally planned) to 5 (quite different from originally planned), the incidence of serendipity
increases by around 30% in Japan and more in the US. Thus, research process uncertainty is amajor source of serendipity. Scientific research not only yields the results (often more than
expected) to the original questions but also those to the questions not originally posed.

Exhibit 25 Research process uncertainty and serendipity (%)(b) US

100%

100%

90%

90%

80%

80%

70%

70%

Serendipity

Serendipity(a) Japan

60%
50%

50%

40%

40%

30%

30%
20%

20%
1

2
3
4
5
Research process uncertainty
N papers

Note1:

60%

1

H papers

The results are not weighted by field

41

2
3
4
5
Research process uncertainty
N papers
H papers

5

RESEARCH COMPETITION

Scientific research is characterized as competitive process for seeking priority by Merton (1973).
For such competitive process to work would require that a researcher recognizes competition
ex-ante and is disciplined by that. While there are substantial numbers of anecdotal evidence forthe importance of priority competition as a motivating force for science, including the ones
described by Merton (1973) himself, the systematic evidence for this is not available. To develop
a good empirical evidence for such view, our survey asked a researcher the following twoquestions on the number of competitors recognized ex-ante and on competitive threat: (1)“ Approximately how many major research teams did you recognize as your potential
competitors when you began the research project? Please indicate the number of potential
competitors in Japan (the US)1 and outside of Japan (the US).” and (2) “How strongly were you
and your team members concerned about the possibility that your competitors would havepriority over your research results?”
As shown in following Exhibit 26 and Exhibit 27, most of the researchers could indicate therange of the number of international (foreign) and domestic competitors (teams), even if there
were a choice of “unknown”. The percentage of the choice of “unknown” for the number ofinternational competitors was only 7% (11 %) for the H projects and 13% (15%) for the N projects
in Japan (the US). There were no recognized international competitors only for 10% (18%) of the
H projects and for 16% (24%) of the N projects in Japan (the US). Thus, majority of scientists faceclear international competitors for both H and N projects and the level of competition recognized
ex-ante is more intense for H projects than for N projects: 84% (71%) for H projects and 71% (61%)
for N projects in Japan (the US).
According to Exhibit 27, there were no recognized domestic competitors for 37% (16%) of the H
projects and for 37% (23%) of the N projects in Japan (the US). That is, domestic competitors areabsent for almost 40% of both H and N projects in Japan. Furthermore, there are more than 5domestic competitors only for 8% of the H projects and 7% of N projects, while there are morethan 5 international competitors for 35% of the H projects and 25% of N projects in Japan. Thus,
the numbers of international competitors recognized are much larger than that of domestic
competitors for scientists in Japan. Such difference does not exist in the US, which would be
expected, given that the US is the largest source country of scientific research in the world. In
summary, competition exists for a great majority of the projects and it is well recognized ex-ante.
More competitors are recognized ex-ante in the H projects than in N projects. Domestic
competition is relatively more important for US based scientists.

1

The location of a research team is identified with that of its leader.

42

Exhibit 26 Number of potential foreign competitors recognized ex-ante (at the stage of project initiation)(a) Japan(b) US

No competitor

10%
16%

No competitor

18%
24%

1 team6%
6%

1 team10%
11%

2 - 5 teams

43%
39%

2 - 5 teams

36%
32%

5 - 10 teams

21%
16%

5 - 10 teams

13%
10%

More than 10 teams

14%
9%More than 10 teams

12%
9%

Unknown

7%
13%

Unknown

11%
15%

0%

10%

H projects

Note1:
Note2:

20%

30%

40%

50%

0%

N projects

10%

H projects

20%

30%

40%

50%

N projects

The upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
The weighted result of natural sciences.

Exhibit 27 Number of potential domestic competitors recognized ex-ante (at the stage of project initiation)(a) Japan(b) US

No competitor

37%
37%

No competitor

16%
23%

1 team14%
12%

1 team11%
11%

2 - 5 teams

35%
34%

2 - 5 teams

42%
39%

5 - 10 teams

5%5%

5 - 10 teams

13%
10%

More than 10 teams

3%
2%More than 10 teams

10%
6%

Unknown

6%
10%

Unknown

8%
12%

0%

10%

H projects

Note1:
Note2:

20%

30%

40%

0%

50%

10%

H projects

N projects

The upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
The weighted result of natural sciences.

43

20%

30%

N projects

40%

50%

Researchers were concerned over priority loss in 53% (23%) of the H projects (response of 4 or 5
to the question of “How strongly were you and your team members concerned about thepossibility that your competitors would have priority over your research results?”) in Japan (theUS) and they were very much concerned in 18% (7%) of them in the respective country (seeExhibit 28). The corresponding ratios for the N projects are 31% (6%) and 11% (4%). Thus,
priority competition does seem to exert significant competitive pressure on scientists, although
only a half of the researchers in Japan and only a quarter of them in the US were concerned withpriority loss even in the H projects and only a minority of researchers was concerned in the N
projects.
It is interesting to see that researchers for the H projects were significantly more concernedover priority loss in both countries. A potential explanation is that there are more competitors
for such projects as seen in Exhibit 26 and Exhibit 27. The priority concern increases with thenumber of competitors recognized ex-ante in both countries as shown in Exhibit 29, although theslope is larger in Japan (the Japanese researchers are more responsive to perceived number ofcompetitors).

44

Exhibit 28 Threat of being scooped (level of concern)(a) Japan(b) US[1] Not at all concerned

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5] Very concerned

12%

19%

[2]

27%

17%

[3]

21%

35%

[4]

25%

18%

[5] Very concerned

6%

0%
10%
H projects

Note1:
Note2:[1] Not at all concerned

21%

20%
30%
N projects

40%

50%

33%
48%

25%
27%

19%
14%

16%
7%

7%
4%

0%
10%
H projects

20%30%
N projects

40%

The upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
The weighted result of natural sciences.

Exhibit 29 Percentage of very significant concern by number of competitors recognized(a) Japan

35%30%(b) US

35%

competition_dom
competition_forgn

30%
25%
Level of theat

Level of theat

25%
20%
15%
10%

20%
15%
10%

5%

5%

0%

0%
No competitor 1

2-5

5 - 10 11 or more

No competitor 1

Competitors (teams)
Note1:

competition_dom
competition_forgn

2-5

5 - 10 11 or more

Competitors (teams)

The results are not weighted by field

45

50%

6

KNOWLEDGE SOURCES AND RESEARCH MANAGEMENT

6－1 EXTERNAL KNOWLEDGE SOURCES THAT INSPIRED THE RESEARCH PROJECT
Since scientific research is a cumulative process, building on the existing stock of knowledge
that is embodied in literature, experts and facilities, the scope and depth of exploiting suchknowledge would affect significantly the efficiency of scientific research. It may depend on theabsorptive capability of the research team as well as its management. While absorptive
capability is most often used to characterize the innovation capability of industrial firms (seeCohen and Levinthal (1989)), such capability may well become relevant to the scientific researchthat has become more complex. Our survey identified 5 broad categories of knowledge sources
based on pre-testing (one category having overlaps with the other categories): literature (open to
the public and widely accessible), forums and facilities (open but less accessible for a distantresearcher), internal or past collaborators (based on personal contacts within collaborative
relationship), external experts (based on personal contacts) and experts in a different field or witha different skill (which have overlaps with the other categories). There are 11 subclasses ofknowledge sources and a respondent was invited to evaluate each of them in terms of whether it
was used or not and, when used, how important it was for suggesting the project by 5 point
Likert scale.
By far, the most important knowledge source for suggesting the research project is scientific
literature, as shown in following Exhibit 30 (a) and (b) for the two countries. Almost 50% of theresearchers of both H and N projects say that they are very important. Colleagues in theorganization (a university, a laboratory, etc.); visiting researchers or post-doctoral students in theorganization; and past research collaborators follow this in both countries, exceeding 10% for eachof H and N projects. In Japan, scientific literature with faster disclosures (preprints, etc.) andconferences, workshops and academic workings also exceed 10%. In the US, researchers withdifferent research skills exceed 10%.
The importance attached by the researchers of H projects tends to be higher than that by the
researchers of N projects for most knowledge sources (except for patent literature in the twocountries and published scientific literature and past research collaborators in the US). As forJapanese survey, the difference of the incidence between these two types of projects are especiallylarge (5% or more points) for conferences, workshops etc.; visiting researchers or post-doctoral
students in the organization; scientific literature with faster disclosures. It is relatively large (2%or more points) for colleagues in the organization (a university, a laboratory, etc.) and researcherswith different research skills. These differences suggest that person-to-person contact is
especially important for getting an idea for initiating a good research project.

46

Exhibit 30 Importance of external knowledge sources for conceiving the research project (% very important)(a) Japan
48%
46%(a) Scientific literature (Articles in journals, etc.)(b) Scientific literature (Preprints, information on websites, those … 19%14%(d) Patent literature

1%1%(e) Conferences, workshops, and academic meetings

21%
15%

(i) Colleagues in the organization (a university, a laboratory, etc.)

25%
22%

(j) Visiting researchers or post-doctoral students in the organization

17%
11%

(k) Past research collaborators

13%
12%

(l) Competitors

8%4%(m) Partners in industrial - academic - government alliance

8%5%(n) Researchers in different academic fields

7%6%(o) Researchers with different research skills (experimental … 11%
8%0%
H projects

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

N projects(b) US(a) Published literature (articles in journals, etc.)

48%
52%

(b) Unpublished literature (preprints, information on websites, etc.)

6%5%(c) Patent literature

1%1%(d) Conferences, workshops or academic meetings

9%9%(e) Colleagues in your organization (university, government lab, … 15%14%(f) Visiting researchers or post-doctoral researchers in your… 12%10%(g) Past research collaborators

11%
11%

(h) Competitors

3%2%(i) Partners in an industrial-academic-government alliance

8%7%(j) Researchers in different academic fields

9%8%(k) Researchers with different research skills (for example,… 15%
12%

Note1:
Note2:
Note3:

0%10%

H projects

N projects

The results show the share of “very important” in the importance of knowledge sources for conceiving the research project.
The upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
The weighted result of natural sciences.

47

The survey also asked the researchers to identify the country location of the most important
knowledge source (such as the location of the key researcher), when the knowledge source iseither “important” or “very important” for suggesting the research projects1. As shown in thefollowing Exhibit 31 (a) and (b), all such most important knowledge sources are domestic(exceeding 60%) in the US. The only exception is “visiting researchers or post-doctoral
researchers,” for which the domestic source is most important for around 40% of the cases. On
the other hand, only the sources of knowledge that are embodied in researchers tend to be
domestic in Japan. Among knowledge sources for suggesting the research project, colleagues in
the organization (a university, a laboratory, etc.); visiting researchers or post-doctoral students inthe organization; past research collaborators are often domestic. On the other hand, the mostimportant sources of knowledge that are embodied in literature and open forum are very often
international. They include scientific literature with faster disclosures, scientific literature, andcompetitors. Since research competition is global (see section 5), it is not surprising thatcompetitors as important knowledge source are also often international for researchers in Japan.

1

The countries for a choice are Japan, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and the other EU
member countries, China and others.

48

Exhibit 31 Percent ranking of important knowledge sources being domestic(a) Japan
10%18%(a) Scientific literature (Articles in journals, etc.)(b) Scientific literature (Preprints, information on websites, those … 10%12%(d) Patent literature

52%
57%

(e) Conferences, workshops, and academic meetings

26%
42%

(i) Colleagues in the organization (a university, a laboratory, etc.)

68%
82%

(j) Visiting researchers or post-doctoral students in the organization

65%
66%

(k) Past research collaborators

62%
67%

(l) Competitors

11%
22%

(m) Partners in industrial - academic - government alliance

83%
92%

(n) Researchers in different academic fields

68%
69%

(o) Researchers with different research skills (experimental … 63%
71%

0%
H projects

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

N projects(b) US(a) Published literature (articles in journals, etc.)

77%
78%

(b) Unpublished literature (preprints, information on websites, etc.)

74%
79%

(c) Patent literature

90%
86%

(d) Conferences, workshops, or academic meetings

80%
83%

(e) Colleagues in your organization (university, government lab, … 89%89%(f) Visiting researchers or post-doctoral researchers in your … 43%37%(g) Past research collaborators

66%
68%

(h) Competitors

74%
63%

(i) Partners in an industrial-academic-government alliance

91%
86%

(j) Researchers in different academic fields

82%
83%

(k) Researchers with different research skills (e.g., experimental … 76%79%

0%
H projects

Note1:
Note2:

10%

20%

N projects

The upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
The weighted result of natural sciences.

49

6－2 RESEARCH MANAGEMENT AND ITS POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONSAs pointed out earlier, most scientific researches today are teamwork. It also builds on thecollaborations across organizations and across disciplines (See next section). It also faces,
perhaps increasingly more, global priority competition. Therefore, we would expect thatmanagement has become increasingly important for research performance. In order to haveempirical basis for evaluating the relevancy of management for a scientific research, our survey
asked what management practices each research team has adopted. In this section, we focus on
7 practices which are identified commonly in the surveys of the two countries1. These practices
cover: ambitious goal setting, information sharing and discussions in a team, division of researchtasks for outsourcing of a research task, improvement of facilities and program, and developmentof a research community.
Exhibit 32 (a) and (b) summarizes how often each research management practice isimplemented in Japan and in the US (% yes). In Japan, information sharing within a team andindividual discussions between a research member and a leader are implemented for more than
70% of both H and N projects. Following this, a setting of an ambitious research project goal andcontinuous improvement of experiment facilities are implemented in more than 50% of the
projects. In the US, a setting of an ambitious research project goal is implemented in more than
90% of the cases. Following this, development of a research community and information
sharing within a research team are implemented in more than 60% of the projects.
Although the patterns of implementation across management practices are similar between H
projects and N projects, all management practices are implemented more in H projects. What isinteresting would be the practices that are implemented in a different degree between two types ofprojects. The management practice with the largest difference in implementation (10% or more)
in Japan are setting of ambitious research goal, division of research works, and development of a
research community. It is only development of a research community in the US. This seems tosuggest that the H projects are more consciously managed, taking into accounts the research
environment and opportunities. The researchers in the H projects are more involved in thedevelopment of a research community for cultivating a new research field. The conscious effort
of a researcher to develop a research community could help enhancing the research performanceby strengthening the network externality among researchers, although it may be partiallyendogenous to the success of the project.

1

The Japanese survey identified 16 management practices and asked not only whether thesepractices has been adopted (we identified major 16 practices based on pre-testing, excluding “theother”) but also how effective they have been (see nagaoka, igami, ijichi and eto (2010)) .
50

Exhibit 32 Implementation of research management practices (% yes)(a) Japan(a) Setting of ambitious research project goal

70%
57%

(h) Information sharing within the research team through meetings

83%
77%

(i) Individual discussions between a research member and a

81%
73%

research leader(l) Division of research works, including outsourcing, for efficient and

36%
25%

expedited research(m) Continuous improvement of experiment facilities owned by the

67%
61%

research team(n) Improvement of computing or simulation programs

34%
32%

(p) Development of a research community for cultivating a new

41%
26%

research field

0%

10%

H projects

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

N projects(b) US(a) The research group set ambitious project goals

96%
93%

(i) The whole research group met every week to share information on

67%
65%

project progress(j) The project leaders checked the graduate students' lab notebooks

47%
44%

at least once per week(l) The project involved outsourcing parts of the work to other

29%
26%

research groups(n) The research project generated improved equipment orexperimental facilities(m) The research project generated improved computing or

43%
42%

simulation capabilities(s) We worked to develop a research community in our field beyond

our lab

40%
36%

85%
74%
0%

H projects

Note1:
Note2:
Note3:

10%

20%

N projects

The results show the share of “yes” in the Implementation of research management practices.
The upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
The weighted result of natural sciences.

51

6－3 USE OF ADVANCED RESEARCH FACILITIES, DATABASES, AND THE INTERNET FOR DISTANTCOLLABORATORS
Research equipment and database plays a very important role for scientific research (Stephan(2010)). For examples, the inventions and the progress of a particle accelerator, a scanningtunneling microscope, and a DNA sequencer have been major sources for advancing research inphysics, materials science and life sciences. In addition, the availability of internet has fosteredcollaborative research among distant researchers and its productivity (see Agrawal and Goldfarb(2008)). Our surveys commonly identified the requirements for such facilities, including theparticipation of remote researchers using the internet and literature and non-literature database1.
Exhibit 33 (a) and (b) shows the summary results for the level of the requirements of theseinfrastructures. Databases of journal/published papers are most frequently (more than 80%)
required in both H projects and N projects in both countries. More than one quarter of the H
projects required external advanced research equipment and facilities in both countries. Internet
is also extensively required for facilitating the participation of remote researchers: 41% (67%) of
the H projects and 32% (58%) of the N projects in Japan (US). Non-literature research tool
database are also required frequently: 30% (55%) of H projects and 23 % (47%) of N projects inJapan (the US). Both participation of remote researchers using internet and non-literature
research tool database seem to be substantially more used by the US researchers than Japan based
researchers. All facilities and databases are more required in H projects, except for literature
database by Japanese researchers.

1

The Japanese survey also asked researchers whether they used the research facilities and databases
as well as how effective they were in producing the main research output, differentiating advanced
research facilities owned by a research team and the external facilities.

52

Exhibit 33 Requirements for research facilities and equipment (% yes)(a) Japan(b) Advanced external experimental equipment and facilities (such as

25%

accelerator, super computer, observatory, etc.)

22%

83%

(d) Databases of journal/published papers

84%(c) The latest databases (genomes, materials, etc.), other than those30%

for journal/published papers

23%

41%

(f) Participation of remote researchers [1] using the internet

32%(e) Access to the latest foreign and domestic research information64%(information available before it is published in journals)

58%

0%
H projects

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

N projects(b) US(a) Advanced external experimental equipment or facilities (such as

31%

accelerator, super computer, observatory, etc.)

28%

91%

(b) Databases of journals/published papers

89%

55%

(c) Research tool databases (genomes, materials, etc.)

47%(d) Regular participation of remote researchers (such as through the67%internet, teleconferencing, etc.)

58%(e) Access to the latest foreign and domestic research information

55%(information available before it is published in journals)

44%0%
H projects

Note1:
Note2:

10%

20%

N projects

The upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
The weighted result of natural sciences.

53

7

RESEARCH TEAMS AS SEEN FROM AUTHORS

The recent studies on the scientific research, based on the bibliographic information,1 showthat a unit of scientific research has increasingly shifted from an individual to a team, involving
multiple organizations rather than a single organization, which is also an international rather
than domestic. The recent research on science mapping2 also suggests that interdisciplinary or
cross-cutting research areas, which require combination of knowledge from different fields, haveemerged broadly in science.
These developments suggest that the issue of how to design and manage a research team has
become an increasingly important issue. However, the bibliographic information alone provides
only limited information on who are the researchers, including their status, the role in research,disciplinary diversity and skill diversity. Furthermore, it is important to note that a significant
number of researchers who contributed only research fund and materials are listed as authors, as
will be shown in this section.
This survey asked a respondent to identify the authors’ organizational affiliations,academic/professional positions in the organization, academic areas, areas of expertise, and thecountries of birth to identify the structure of research team. This question on author profile was
asked for all authors when the number of authors is 6 or less and for up to 6 authors, the first, lastand corresponding authors and the randomly selected authors, when the number of authors is 7
or more. The question was also asked to respondents, when he/she was not included in the list.

1

See Jones Wuchy and Uzzi (2008), and Saka and Kuwahara (2008)

2 See Saka, Igami and Kuwahara (2010)54

7－1 NUMBER OF AUTHORSThe share of single authored papers is 3.0% for the H papers and 6.9% for the N papers inJapanese samples; and 5.4% for the H papers and 11% for the N papers in the US samples. This
indicates that most scientific research is done by a team rather than by an individual in our
sample too.
The median and average number of authors is 6 and 10 for the H projects in Japanese samples;
4 and 5.1 for N projects in Japanese samples; 5 and 7.9 for the H projects in the US samples; 4 and
4.2 for N projects in the US samples, as shown in the following exhibit. The size distribution of
authors is skewed especially in the H projects.

55

(Number of authors by field)
The boxplots in Exhibit 34 shows the distributions of the number of authors by field. Red
boxplots indicate the distributions for the H projects; and blue ones for the N projects. Left ends
of boxes indicate the first quartiles; and right ends of boxes the third quartiles. Left ends ofwhiskers indicate the 5th percentile; and right ends of whiskers the 95th percentile. The red bands
in bars indicate the medians; and rhombi in bars the means. The bars display the range (25% to75%) of the distribution of authors on a paper by type of the project and by field.
Exhibit 34 Distributions of number of authors by field(a) Japan
unit: persons
564
1473
71
186
43
99

Minimum
1
1
1
1
1
1

3
3
3
3
3
3

Median644
4444_Comp&Math

127
253
16
61

1
1
1
1

3
2
2
1

5_Eng

68
138

1
1

6_Env/Eco&Geo

30
85
66
198

Respondents

Q1

Q3

Maximum Average

9
6
7
5
6
5

327
209
20
13
13
10

10.0
5.1
5.3
4.2
4.7
4.1

5
4
3
2

8
5
4
3

327
209
6
8

19.1
6.4
3.1
2.4

3
2

4
3

6
4

21
18

5.1
3.8

1
1
1
1

3
2
7
4

7
4
9
6

16
5
14
8

50
33
46
31

11.5
4.0
11.1
6.1

60
132
83
321
40

1
1
1
1
1

5
3
5
4
2

6
4
8
5
3

9
6
12
7
3

23
12
34
18
8

6.8
4.4
9.4
5.8
3.0

Respondents

721
1393
66
120
22
50

Minimum
1
1
1
1
2
1

3
2
2
2
3
2

Median5443544_Comp&Math

96
163
39
92

1
1
1
1

3
2
2
1

5_Eng

57
105

1
1

6_Env/Eco&Geo

68
126
155
290

1
1
2
1

60
97
158
350
76
137

1
1
1
1
1
1

Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space

7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim
8.2_Basic_LifeMedianS_Social

Average

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

(b) US
unit: persons
Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space

7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim
8.2_Basic_LifeMedianS_Social

Average0

Note1:

Note2:
Note3:

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Q1

Q3

Maximum Average

8
5
6
5
6
5

375
74
12
14
13
9

7.9
4.2
4.6
3.7
5.1
3.7

5
3
2
2

7
5
5
3

375
24
11
15

12.9
4.1
3.4
2.3

2
2

3
3

6
4

75
22

5.8
3.1

3
2
5
3

4
3
8
4

7
5
12
6

50
19
206
16

6.5
4.0
10.1
4.9

4
2
4
3
1
2

5
3
6
4
3
2

7
4
9
6
3
3

37
8
58
74
9
13

6.4
3.4
7.6
5.0
2.8
2.7

20

Red boxplots indicate the distributions for the H projects; and blue ones for the N projects. Left end of boxes indicate the first quartiles;
and right end of boxes the third quartiles. Left end of whiskers indicate the 5th percentile; and right end of whiskers the 95th percentile.
The red bands in bars indicate the medians; and rhombi in bars the means.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.
The results of natural sciences are not weighted by field

56

The number of authors varies significantly across scientific fields, but is quite similar between
Japanese and the US samples. Since the number of authors varies significantly even in a specificscientific field, we use mainly the medians for the following comparison across fields.
The size of authors is small in computer science & mathematics and social sciences, while it islarge in basic life sciences and clinical medicine & psychiatry/psychology. The range of theauthor size between the first and the third quartile for physics & space science is not especiallylarge, but the gap between the median and the average is very large. This reflects the existenceof the outlier, the papers with a huge number of authors (more than 300), on such subject as
particle physics.
The number of authors tends to be larger for the H papers than the N papers in most fields.
The variation of the number of authors is large in clinical medicine & psychiatry/psychology andbasic life sciences in both Japanese and the US samples; and is large in environment/ecology &geosciences especially in Japanese samples. In these fields, the maximum size of the researchteam is also very large, following physics & space science.

57

7－2 SCOPE OF AUTHORS: WHO ARE THE AUTHORS?
The basic question we asked in our survey is who are included among the authors, beyond
those who directly contributed to the research project such as those who engaged in experiments,
observations and theoretical analysis. We asked a respondent whether there are those authors
who did only non-research works such as providing research materials in the project under thesurvey.
A large number of researchers who supplied only research materials are included as an author
in both Japanese and the US samples (see Exhibit 35). The shares of such authors are 28% in the
H papers and 19% in the N papers in Japanese samples; and 17% in both the H and N papers in
the US samples. In addition, a researcher who supplied or developed only the research facilities
or equipments is also frequently included as an author in Japanese samples (17% in the H papers
and 14% in the N papers). Frequent inclusion of these researchers among the authors might
have been important to provide them the incentives to provide such materials and equipments.
It also indicates their importance in research.
It is also noteworthy that a researcher who provided only research fund is also included as an
author relatively frequently in both Japanese and the US samples. Preliminary regression
analysis indicates wider scope of authors in Japanese samples is a reason why the average
number of authors tends to be larger in Japanese samples compared to in the US samples.

58

Exhibit 35 Scope of authors(a) Japan(a) Any researcher who only supplied research materials analyzed in28%

the research19%(b) Any researcher who only supplied or developed the research

17%

facilities or equipments used in the research

14%(c) Any researcher who only supplied or developed the computer11%

program or database used in the research

7%(d) Any researcher who only supplied funds used in the research(e) Other

8%
7%

6%
6%

0%
H projects

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

N projects(b) US(a) Any researcher who only supplied research materials analyzed in17%

the research17%(b) Any researcher who only supplied or developed the research

11%

facilities or equipments used in the research

10%(c) Any researcher who only supplied or developed the computer11%

program or database used in the research8%(d) Any researcher who only supplied funds used in the research(e) Other

6%
5%

5%
5%

0%
H projects

Note1:
Note2:
Note3:
Note4:

5%

10%

N projects

The choice is non-exclusive.
Others are those researchers who did not provide direct contribution to the research project nor any four of the listed contributions
The upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
The weighted result of natural sciences.

59

7－3 COMBINATION OF AUTHORS IN ACADEMIC/PROFESSIONAL POSITION
The following analysis is limited to the samples of the focal papers written by six or less authors,
so as to avoid the possible biases due to our selective sampling of the first, last and corresponding
authors of the focal papers which would become important as the number of author increase toseven or more.
Exhibit 36 shows the compositions of the authors classified by academic/professional position
by sector and by types of papers. Each paper has an equal weight for calculating the average. For
example, in the case of a paper consisting of n authors, each author is given a weight of 1/n for the
purpose of aggregation.
Exhibit 36 (a) and (b) show composition of authors, in the HEIs, in Japanese and the US
samples respectively. As for Japanese samples, the share of professors is the largest, followed byassociate professor and assistant professors. Professors account for around 40% in the H and N
papers. On the other hand, young scholars, who are undergraduates, graduate students, or
postdoctoral fellows, account for 28% of the authors of the H papers and 25% of the N papers.
Students alone account for close to 20% of the authors of both types of papers.
In the US samples, professors also account for the largest share in both the H and N papers.
PhD students have the second largest share in both the H and N papers. The contribution of
postdoctoral fellows is as large as that of PhD students in the H papers. Young scholars accountfor 38% of the authors of the H papers and 32% of the N papers in the US samples, around 10%
larger than those in Japanese samples. These results indicate more involvement of young
scholars in the knowledge creation process in the US.
In PRIs of Japanese samples, the share of the professor level scientists is the largest, followedby associate professor level research scientists. Young scholars account for 15% of the authors ofthe H papers and 17% of the N papers. The share of students is small. As for the US samples,the share of the professor level scientists is the largest, followed by postdoctoral fellows andassociate professor level research scientists. There is a large portion of researchers who areclassified into “Other.” “Other” includes technician, the others and unknown.
In private firms, the share of the young scholars accounts for non-negligible percentage, which
however is due to the fact that a research paper collaboratively done with HEIs and/or PRIs areincluded as the papers of the private firms1. This effect seems to be especially important for H
papers. The share of researchers in other category is very large in the US samples, indicating thecategory which we used is not suitable for describing the professional position of researchers in
the US firms.

1

The paper is assigned to the sector with which the responding author was affiliated when the focal papers were
submitted.

60

Exhibit 36 Compositions of authors in academic/professional position (a paper basis, by sector, natural sciences)(a) Higher education institutions, Japan

M.A. and/or undergraduate student

7.7%
H papers(234)

10.9%

12.7%

16.9%

40.2%

2.5%

9.0%

Ph.D. student
Postdoctoral fellow
Assistant Professor level

N papers(897)

Associate Professor level

10.2%
9.4%

14.6%

17.6%

38.2%

4.0%

6.0%

0%

Professor level
Other

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

(b) Higher education institutions, US

M.A. and/or undergraduate student

2.5%
H papers(319)17.8%

8.8% 8.7%

35.9%

8.7%

17.6%

Ph.D. student
Postdoctoral fellow
Assistant Professor level

4.8%
N papers(864)

Associate Professor level

15.6%

10.6% 12.1%

35.9%

9.5%

11.5%

0%

20%

Professor level
Other

40%

60%

80%

100%

(c) Public research institutions, Japan0.3%
H papers(71) 2.0%
12.8%

M.A. and/or undergraduate student

16.0%

22.2%

42.6%

4.1%

Ph.D. student
Postdoctoral fellow
Assistant Professor level

2.4%
N papers(161) 2.2%
12.9%

0%

Associate Professor level

14.1%

26.5%

36.6%

5.3%

Professor level
Other

20%

40%

60%

80%

61

100%

(d) Public research institutions, US

M.A. and/or undergraduate student

2.2%
H papers(52) 4.3%

10.0% 11.8%

40.4%

12.4%

18.9%

Ph.D. student
Postdoctoral fellow
Assistant Professor level
Associate Professor level

2.7%
N papers(105)8.0%

9.4% 11.2%

38.3%

19.6%

11.0%

0%

Professor level
Other

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

(e) Private firms, Japan

M.A. and/or undergraduate student

0.0%
H papers(26) 7.8%

17.2%

29.4%

34.9%

4.0%

6.7%

Ph.D. student
Postdoctoral fellow
Assistant Professor level

1.2%
N papers(72) 1.8%

Associate Professor level

20.2%

21.9%

40.0%

13.0%

1.9%

0%

Professor level
Other

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

(e) Private firms, US

2.5%
H papers(17)8.3%
12.0%3.9%
3.4%

M.A. and/or undergraduate student

32.1%

37.8%

Ph.D. student
Postdoctoral fellow
Assistant Professor level

1.9%
N papers(39) 3.5%
8.9% 5.8%
7.1%

0%Note1:
Note2:
Note3:
Note4:

20%

Associate Professor level

25.6%

47.2%

Professor level
Other

40%

60%

80%

These exhibits cover only papers with 6 or less authors.
Each author of the paper with n authors has a weight of 1/n for aggregation“Other” includes technician, the others and unknown.
The results are not weighted by field.

62

100%

7－4 WHO ARE THE FIRST AUTHORS WHEN THE AUTHORS ARE LISTED IN ORDER OF THEIR DEGREE OF
CONTRIBUTIONS
Exhibit 37 (a) shows the academic/professional positions of the first authors in the focal papers
in which authors are listed in order of their degrees of contributions. It shows the shares by
academic/professional position. It indicates the types of researchers who made the mostcontributions to the focal papers. Stephan (2010) 1 pointed out that PhD students andpostdoctoral fellows appear disproportionately more as the first authors in the US articles in thejournal Science. We extend her analysis by covering all journals and by focusing on the articles
where the order of the authors is according to their contributions.
In the following discussion, we first look at the contribution of young scholars in the researchteam of the HEIs and whose focal paper is the N papers. As shown in Exhibit 37 (a) and (d),young scholars, i.e., undergraduates, graduate students, or postdoctoral fellows, account for 35%of the first authors in Japanese samples and for 49% of the first authors in the US samples.
Contribution of young scholars is more common in the US sample, compared to Japanesesamples. The percentage of young scholars in all authors of N papers is 26% and 32% inJapanese and US samples, respectively. The share of young scholars in the first authors shows
remarkable increase from that in the all authors in both countries.
The contribution of the young scholars is especially large in life sciences in both countries. In
life sciences, 45% and 61% of the first authors are young scholars in Japanese and the US samples,
respectively. In physical sciences, the young scholars account for more than 50% of the firstauthor in the US samples, while the share is around 30% in Japanese samples. In the Japanesesamples, the difference in the share of the young scholars between life sciences and physicalsciences is statistically significant.
Contribution of the postdoctoral fellows as the first author varies on the type of papers, i.e., H
or N papers. The share of the postdoctoral fellows in the H papers is very large in both physicaland life sciences in Japanese samples and in life sciences in the US samples; and the differences
are statistically significant. As we can see from Exhibit 37 (a) and (d), the composition of the
postdoctoral fellows and other young scholars, i.e., PhD students; master students; andundergraduate students, is different by the type of papers. The participation of other young
scholars as the first author is more often in the N papers compared to the H papers. Thisfinding indicates that one of the crucial functions of the N projects is education of students.

1

Based on her seminar presentation on Economics of Science at the Research Institute of Economy, Trade andIndustry (March 2010).

63

Exhibit 37 Academic/professional positions of the first authors in the focal papers whose authors are listed inorder of their degree of contributions (by sector)(a) Higher education institutions, Japan (natural sciences)

H papers(274)

M.A. and/or undergraduate student

2.6%
16.4%

17.9%

19.3%

21.5%2.2%

Ph.D. student

20.1%

Postdoctoral fellow
Assistant Professor level

N papers(849)

Associate Professor level

5.9%

19.6%

20.6%

20.4%

21.7%2.4%

Professor level

9.5%

0%

20%

Other

40%

60%

80%

(b) HEIs, Japan (physical sciences)

H papers(158)

3.2%
15.2%

18.4%

22.2%

100%

(c) HEIs, Japan (life sciences)

1.3%
25.3%

1.5%
H papers(66)
18.2%

14.6%

N papers(448)

31.8%

7.1%
15.2%
16.5% 21.4%
8.7%

0%

20%

3.0%
18.2% 16.7%10.6%

40%

60%

29.0%

2.0%

N papers(270)

6.7%
27.4%

21.5%

1.9%
18.9% 12.6%

11.1%

80%

100%

0%

64

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

(d) Higher education institutions, US (natural sciences)

1.5%
H papers(261)

M.A. and/or undergraduate student

21.1%

9.2% 11.1%

24.9% 4.2%

Ph.D. student

28.0%

Postdoctoral fellow
Assistant Professor level
Associate Professor level

5.0%
N papers(606)

25.7%

12.5%

13.0%

20.3% 4.8%

Professor level

18.6%

0%

20%

40%

Other

60%

80%

(e) HEIs, US (physical sciences)2.3%
H papers(129)(f) HEIs, US (life sciences)

8.5%
3.9%
8.5% 22.5%

35.7%

100%

1.7%
H papers(59) 11.9%

18.6%

5.0%
N papers(298)

50.8%

9.1%
4.4%
13.8% 19.5%

32.9%

N papers(177)5.6%

Note1:
Note2:

20%

40%

11.9%
4.5%
9.6%13.6%

27.7%

15.4%

0%

8.5%
5.1%
11.9%
10.2%

27.1%

60%

80%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

The sample focuses on those papers the authors of which are ordered according to the contribution of the authors to the research.
“Other” includes technician, the others and unknown.

65

7－5 COUNTRY OF BIRTH OF THE FIRST AUTHORS
Analyses of the country of birth of researches reveal striking difference in the team formation
between Japan and the US. In the following, we focus on the first authors of research teams of
HEIs and investigate the differences in the origin of birth by the cohort of authors. As a proxy tomeasure the cohort of the authors, we used the academic position of authors. Young scholars
include undergraduate students, master students, PhD students, and postdoctoral fellows. Seniorauthors include assistant professors, associate professors, and other academic positions.
Exhibit 38 (a) shows the country of birth of the first authors in N papers (HEIs and naturalsciences). In the US samples, it was found that more than 60% of young scholars were born
outside of the US and the US-born young scholars only account for 38% of the total. Among theforeign-born young scholars, China has the largest share. China-born young scholars reach to
15% of the total. European-born young scholars account for around 20% and Asia-born young
scholars excluding Japan and China account for 14%. The results clearly show the US relianceon the foreign-born talents on knowledge creation process in science. The degree of reliancedeclines in senior scholars, the share of foreign-born researchers is around 50%.
As for Japanese samples, around 30% of young scholars and 10% of senior scholars areforeign-born. China-born and other Asia-born researchers are dominant in the foreign-born
young scholars in Japanese samples.
Exhibit 38 (b) shows the country of birth of the first authors in H papers (HEIs and naturalsciences). The share of foreign-born first authors increases in both young and senior scholars inJapanese samples, relative to N papers. In H papers, the share of China-born young scholars
declines, while the share of European-born and US-born researchers increases remarkably. In
the US samples, the share of foreign-born first authors also increases in young scholars, but it
decreases in senior researchers.
Exhibit 38 Country of birth of the first authors by the type of papers (HEIs and natural sciences)(a) N papers

HEIs
Japan
US

Japan

China

Other Asia

EuropeOther,
unknown

US

Young scholar (297)

71.4%

10.1%

7.7%

3.4%

1.3%

6.1%

Senior scholar (552)

89.5%

2.7%

2.4%

2.7%

1.1%

1.6%

Young scholar (299)

2.7%

14.7%

13.7%

20.4%

37.8%

10.7%

Senior scholar (307)

3.3%

6.5%

13.4%

13.7%

53.7%

9.4%

(b) H papers

HEIs
Japan
US
Note1:
Note2:
Note3:

Japan

China

Other Asia

EuropeOther,
unknown

US

Young scholar (107)

64.5%

6.5%

8.4%

9.3%

5.6%

5.6%

Senior scholar (167)

80.8%

3.0%

1.2%

6.0%

2.4%

6.6%

Young scholar (132)

2.3%

17.4%

14.4%

26.5%

27.3%

12.1%

Senior scholar (129)

0.0%

3.9%

10.9%

13.2%

64.3%

7.8%

The sample focuses on those papers the authors of which are ordered according to the contribution of the authors to the research.
Young scholars: M.A. and/or undergraduate student, PhD student, and Postdoctoral fellow. Senior scholars: Assistant professor level,
Associate professor level, Professor level, and other.
The results are not weighted by field.

66

7－6 DIVERSITY OF AUTHORS IN RESEARCH TEAM
This subsection looks briefly at the diversity of authors in specialized academic field,
specialized skill, country of birth, and affiliating sector at the time of submitting the focal papers(Exhibit 39). It is based on the profiles of up to six authors of the focal papers, who include thefirst, last and corresponding authors on a preferential basis.
Exhibit 39(a) and Exhibit 40 (a) show the distribution of the number of academic fields coveredby research teams, where academic fields consist of 27 fields, covering such fields as mathematics,
computer science and chemistry. For both types of papers the authors are most likely to belong
to one discipline. The authors of the H papers are more likely to cover more than one specialized
academic field than the N papers, as shown in the exhibit. This suggests that the researches tend
to be conducted by more interdisciplinary research teams in the H papers than in N papers. The
feature is common in both Japanese and the US samples.
Exhibit 39(b) and Exhibit 40 (b) show the distribution of the number of skills covered byresearch teams, where there are 3 broad categories of skills: theory, experiment and clinicalanalysis. In both countries, diversities in skills are high in research teams which produced H
papers.
Exhibit 39(c) and Exhibit 40 (c) show the participation of foreign-born researchers in researchteams. As shown in the origin of birth of the first authors, there is a striking difference between
Japanese and the US samples in the combination of origins. In the N papers, foreign-born
researchers are involved in around 70% of research teams in the US samples, while in around
30% of research teams in Japanese samples. Involvement of foreign researchers in researchteams is more common in the H papers compared to the N papers. This characteristic is moreevident in Japanese samples.
Analyses of the international co-authorship based on the organization’s location shows that the
average international co-authorship in 2005 – 2007 is 24% in Japan and 29% in the US. A small
gap between the percentage of research teams with foreign-born researchers and the occurrenceof international co-authorship in Japanese samples indicates that majority of foreign-born
researchers observed in the Japanese survey were affiliated with the organizations outside ofJapan. In contrast, the percentage of research teams with foreign-born researchers is muchhigher than the occurrence of international co-authorship in the US samples. The result meansthat the foreign-researchers counted here were affiliated with the organization in the US, clearly
indicating “brain drain” to the US and the US’s large dependence on foreign talents.
Exhibit 39(d) and Exhibit 40 (d) show the distribution of the number of sectors with which theauthors of the research team is affiliated. The types of the sectors cover higher education
institutions, PRIs, private firms and private non-profit research institutions. The authors of the
H papers are likely to cover more than one sector than the N papers in both countries.

67

Exhibit 39 Diversity of authors in the research team, Japan(a) Combination of specialized academic fields
49％
H projects

0.5%
13.4%
2.3%

32.6%

N projects

0.4%
9.3%
2.1%

27.7%

0%

10%

51.3%

39％
20%

2 fields

30%

40%

3 fields

60.6%

50%

4 fields

60%

70%

5 fields

80%

90% 100%

1 field(b) Combination of specialized skills
36％
H projects

32.5%

N projects

3.3%

26.7%

0%

3.3%

30％

10%

64.2%

20%

30%
2 skills

70.0%

40%

50%

3 skills

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

1 skill(c) Combination of origins of birth50％
H projects

48.6%

N projects

29.8%

1.4%

0.3%

50.1%

69.8%

30％
0%

10%

20%

30%

Japan + Other countries

40%

50%

60%

70%

Only other countries

68

80%

90% 100%

Only Japan(d) Combination of sectors
41％
H projects

0.3%
3.9%

36.3%

N projects

59.5%

0.1%
3.1%

27.2%

69.7%

30％
0%

10%

20%

30%

2 sectors
Note1:
Note2:
Note3:
Note4:
Note5:

40%

50%

3 sectors

60%

70%

4 sectors

80%

90% 100%

1 sector(Academic fields of specialization) One specialized field is chosen for each author among 27 fields, covering such fields as mathematics,
computer science and chemistry.
(Specialized skills) One skill is chosen for each author among theory, experiment and clinical analysis(Country of birth) Birth place chosen for each author among Japan and outside of Japan.
(Institutions) One institution is chosen for each author among university and the other higher education institutions, public research
institutions, private firms and private non-profit research institutions
The weighted result of natural sciences.

Exhibit 40 Diversity of authors in the research team, US(a) Combination of specialized academic fields
54％
H projects

35.5%

N projects

27.1%

0%

10%

43％
20%

2 fields

14.5%

0.8%

0.6%
11.7%
3.0%

30%
3 fields

40%

50%

4 fields

69

46.2%

3.0%

57.5%

60%

70%

5 fields

80%
1 field

90% 100%

(b) Combination of specialized skills
37％

H projects

34.0%

N projects

29.1%

0%

3.0%

1.7%

31％

10%

63.0%

20%

30%

69.3%

40%

2 skills

50%

3 skills

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

1 skill(c) Combination of origins of birth80％
H projects

61.3%

N projects

18.2%

51.7%

20.5%

19.2%

29.1%

70％
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Combination of US and abroad

50%

60%

70%

Only abroad

80%

90% 100%

Only US(d) Combination of sectors
29％
H projects

26.3%

0%

22％

10%

20%

2 sectors

Note2:
Note3:
Note4:
Note5:

71.0%

0.1%
20.3% 1.4%

N projects

Note1:

0.1%
2.6%

78.2%

30%

40%

3 sectors

50%

60%

4 sectors

70%

80%

90% 100%

1 sector(Academic fields of specialization) One specialized field is chosen for each author among 27 fields, covering such fields as mathematics,
computer science and chemistry.
(Specialized skills) One skill is chosen for each author among theory, experiment and clinical analysis(Country of birth) Birth place chosen for each author among Japan and outside of Japan.
(Institutions) One institution is chosen for each author among university and the other higher education institutions, public research
institutions, private firms and private non-profit research institutions
The weighted result of natural sciences.

70

7－7 WOMEN IN RESEARCH TEAM
The ratio of female authors in research team by field of science and sector is shown in Exhibit
41. The level of participation of female scientist differs significantly across the field of science.
The ratio of female scientists in life sciences is higher than that in physical sciences in bothcountries. Female authors account for around 30% of research team in life sciences and medicine
in the US, relative to around 13% in physical sciences. In Japan they account for around 20% inlife sciences and 10 % in medicine, relative to around 7% in physical sciences. Thus, theparticipation of female scientist in research team is more frequent in the US than in Japan. Thereis no major difference in the degree of participation of female scientists between H and N papers
but there are more female participation in physical sciences when the research is conducted inuniversity and the other educational institutions than in public research institutions in bothcountries.

Exhibit 41 The ratio of female authors in research team by field of science and sector (%)

Japan

US

Physical sciences (HEI)

H paper
7.5(77)

N paper
6.6(218)

H paper
13.7(193)

N paper
12.4(430)

Life sciences (HEI)
Medicine (HEI)
Physical sciences (PRI)

20.9(18)
10.4(4)5.9(26)17.5(93)12.1(34)
5.6(39)29.2(81)30(43)
9.3(35)28.5(265)27.5(158)
11.4(62)

Life sciences (PRI)

15.6(11)9.1(22)31.2(14)21.7(35)

Note1:
Note2:

These exhibits cover only papers with 6 or less authors. The number of observation is shown in parentheses.
Data of female authors in research teams in Japan was obtained by an additional survey conducted during May – July 2011.

71

8

INPUTS FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS

8－1 TIME BETWEEN RESEARCH PROJECT CONCEPTION AND THE FOCAL PAPER SUBMISSION
This survey clarifies how many years it takes from the conception of research project throughthe actual launch of research projects to the submission of the focal paper, by asking the scientists
the year they conceived their research projects, the year they actually started their research
projects, and the year they submitted their focal papers.
Exhibit 42 indicates the years from the conception of project to its launch by scientific field.
Those show relatively small differences in the years between Japan and United States, amongscientific fields, and between the H and N projects. The time-lag mostly distributes between zeroand one year for the projects both in Japan and the US, although it has a longer right tail in Japan.
The average time-lags in the scientific fields of chemistry; environment/ecology & geosciences;
and agricultural sciences & plant & animal science in Japan, are longer than those in otherscientific fields in Japan and the same filed in the US.
Exhibit 43 indicates the years from the launch of project to the submission of the focal paper byscientific field. Those show that the average and median time-lags differ among scientific fields.
Also, the results show that the average and median time-lags of the projects in Japan are mostly
longer than those in the Unites States even in the same scientific fields. The median time-lags are
two or three years for the projects in Japan, and one or two years for those in the US. In addition,
the time-lags for the H projects are likely to be shorter than those for the N projects. The averagetime-lag is 3.0 and 2.3 years for the H projects and 3.5 and 2.6 years for the N projects, in naturalsciences as a whole, in Japan and in the US, respectively.
In summary, the time-lag between the conception of the research project and its launch ismostly a year or less in both countries but has a longer tail in Japan. Time-lag between the launchof the project and submission of the focal paper is shorter for H project than for N project andlonger in Japan.

72

Exhibit 42 Time-lags between project conception and launch of the project(a) Japan
unit: years
Q3
Maximum Average
1.0
30.0
1.1
1.0
22.0
1.1
2.0
30.0
1.5
2.0
10.0
1.1
1.0
5.0
0.9
1.0
19.0
1.2

553
1419
70
177
43
91

Minimum
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Q1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Median
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0

4_Comp&Math

123
241
16
59

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

8.0
14.0
5.0
13.0

1.0
1.1
0.6
0.9

5_Eng

66
135

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.5
1.0

1.0
1.0

17.0
19.0

1.3
1.3

6_Env/Eco&Geo

30
84
65
194

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0

2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0

13.0
11.0
6.0
10.0

2.0
1.4
0.9
0.8

60
128
80
310
38

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0

2.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0

15.0
22.0
12.0
13.0
5.0

1.4
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.6

Respondents

637
1218
59
99
17
42

Minimum
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Q1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Median
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0

4_Comp&Math

94
144
34
80

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

13.0
17.0
2.0
5.0

1.0
0.6
0.4
0.6

5_Eng

41
89

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0

12.0
4.0

1.3
0.8

6_Env/Eco&Geo

64
113
132
244

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

21.0
12.0
9.0
5.0

0.9
0.9
1.0
0.6

55
90
141
317
62
114

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

5.0
5.0
14.0
27.0
6.0
8.0

0.9
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.8

Respondents

Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space

7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim
8.2_Basic_LifeMedianS_Social

Average

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

(b) US
Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space

7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim
8.2_Basic_LifeMedianS_Social

Average0

Note1:

Note2:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

unit: years
Q3
Maximum Average
1.0
21.0
0.8
1.0
27.0
0.7
1.0
3.0
0.6
1.0
7.0
0.8
0.0
2.0
0.2
1.0
15.0
1.3

10

Red boxplots indicate the distributions for the H projects; and blue ones for the N projects. Left end of boxes indicate the first quartiles;
and right end of boxes the third quartiles. Left end of whiskers indicate the 5th percentile; and right end of whiskers the 95th percentile.
The red bands in bars indicate the medians; and rhombi in bars the means.
The results of natural sciences are not weighted by field.

73

Exhibit 43 Time-lags between launch of the project and submission of the focal paper, Japan(a) Japan
unit: years
Q3
Maximum Average
4.0
31.0
3.0
4.0
36.0
3.5
4.0
23.0
3.3
5.0
17.0
3.9
3.0
12.0
2.7
5.0
20.0
3.6

553
1419
70
177
43
91

Minimum
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Q1
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0

Median
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0

4_Comp&Math

123
241
16
59

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0

3.0
4.0
1.0
3.0

14.0
36.0
5.0
15.0

2.2
3.4
1.3
2.6

5_Eng

66
135

0.0
0.0

1.0
2.0

2.0
3.0

4.0
4.5

16.0
22.0

3.1
3.7

6_Env/Eco&Geo

30
84
65
194

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0

3.8
5.0
4.0
4.0

13.0
18.0
12.0
19.0

3.0
3.7
2.8
3.2

60
128
80
310
38

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0

5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0

12.0
11.0
31.0
30.0
16.0

3.8
3.5
3.8
3.7
3.2

Respondents

637
1218
59
99
17
42

Minimum
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Q1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Median
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

4_Comp&Math

94
144
34
80

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0

18.0
21.0
8.0
10.0

1.9
2.0
1.4
1.8

5_Eng

41
89

0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0

1.0
2.0

3.0
3.0

10.0
14.0

2.1
2.5

6_Env/Eco&Geo

64
113
132
244

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0

13.0
27.0
15.0
21.0

2.7
3.4
3.1
2.2

55
90
141
317
62
114

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

3.0
5.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0

12.0
27.0
15.0
36.0
30.0
34.0

2.8
4.0
2.0
2.8
2.5
3.0

Respondents

Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space

7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim
8.2_Basic_LifeMedianS_Social

Average

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

(b) US
Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space

7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim
8.2_Basic_LifeMedianS_Social

Average0

Note1:

Note2:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

unit: years
Q3
Maximum Average
3.0
18.0
2.3
3.0
38.0
2.6
1.0
9.0
1.4
3.0
38.0
2.9
2.0
4.0
1.7
3.0
12.0
2.6

10

Red boxplots indicate the distributions for the H projects; and blue ones for the N projects. Left end of boxes indicate the first quartiles;
and right end of boxes the third quartiles. Left end of whiskers indicate the 5th percentile; and right end of whiskers the 95th percentile.
The red bands in bars indicate the medians; and rhombi in bars the means.
The results of natural sciences are not weighted by field.

748－2 LABOR INPUT FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS
Labor input is the most basic input for a research project. We asked respondents to identify
the total labor input in man-month units, which were consumed by a research team as a wholefrom the time of substantially initiating the research project to the time of submitting the latest
paper from the research project.
Exhibit 44 shows that the total labor input in man-month units for the research project differs
very substantially among scientific fields both in Japan and in the US. It shows that, in general,
the H projects spend more total labor input than the N projects both in Japan and in the US,
except for computer science and mathematics. The ratio of total labor input of the H projects to
the N projects in natural sciences is around 1.5 (1.39 (Japan) and 1.50 (U.S.) in median; 1.50
(Japan) and 1.40 (U.S.) in average).
Also, it shows that, as a whole, the projects in Japan spend a few times as much as those in the
US in each scientific field for both H and N projects. For the median of total labor input innatural sciences, the projects in Japan spend about 3 times as much as those in the US in both H
and N projects. This suggests that the concept of “project” is interpreted more narrowly in the
US than in Japan (the median number of papers published per project is also roughly3 times
larger in Japan than in the US, see Section 9). This result may also be related to theabove-mentioned result of the differences in the time-lag between the launch of project and thesubmission of the focal paper, which was shown in 8-1.

75

Exhibit 44 Total research man-months expended on the research project by field(a) Japan
557
1453
69
181
43
99

Minimum
1
0
6
2
4
1

4_Comp&Math

124
249
16
61

5_Eng
6_Env/Eco&Geo

Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space

7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim
8.2_Basic_LifeMedianS_Social

Average

1

10

100

1,000

Q1

unit: man-months
Q3
Maximum Average
300
25,000114.8
18090,000
75.9
300
2,500
143.6
240
3,000
98.2
294
2,000
125.2
225
2,000
106.4

48
36
50
48
55
48

Median
100
72
144
96
100
100

1
0
6
1

39
30
20
24

98
70
41
52

204
140
150
112

25,000
3,600
420
720

97.5
68.2
47.5
56.3

68
135

2
2

48
38

96
67

251
180

11,000
2,268

100.9
73.7

30
85
65
196

6
5
6
1

37
36
60
24

49
72
100
50

100
150
300
120

3,600
90,00012,000
3,360

70.9
77.4
128.4
54.0

60
132
82
315
39

1
5
3
1
1

60
36
50
41
16

120
76
136
72
25

291
180
450
192
67

1,250
1,200
3,600
5,400
300

123.4
78.0
158.8
83.3
32.5

15
12
9
10
16
17

Median
36
24
24
24
45
36

Respondents

10,000(b) US
unit: man-months
660
1303
63
114
22
48

Minimum
0
0
2
1
6
2

4_Comp&Math

94
156
31
86

1
1
3
0

12
6
8
7

5_Eng

49
99

3
1

6_Env/Eco&Geo

67
120
130
264
57
92
147
324
62
119

Respondents

Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space

7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim
8.2_Basic_LifeMedianS_Social

Average1

Note1:

Note2:
Note3:
Note4:

10

100

1,000

Q1

Q3

Maximum Average

72
58
36
50
60
60

37,500120,000
300
1,000
336
1,000

38.0
27.1
20.4
24.9
38.4
35.1

33
14
20
12

96
36
38
45

24,000
1,200
100
960

36.1
17.8
17.8
18.4

20
12

36
30

150
60

2,400
500

52.8
27.8

4
1
0
1

12
15
24
10

30
32
48
24

60
60
80
48

1,200
600
37,50050,000

35.0
30.8
47.2
24.1

0
1
4
1
0
1

24
12
22
18
6
6

40
27
36
36
18
18

81
60
82
72
36
48

1,200
10,0003,000
120,000
8,568
800

41.6
26.5
44.1
38.2
19.5
18.6

10,000Red boxplots indicate the distributions for the H projects; and blue ones for the N projects. Left end of boxes indicate the first quartiles;
and right end of boxes the third quartiles. Left end of whiskers indicate the 5th percentile; and right end of whiskers the 95th percentile.
The red bands in bars indicate the medians; and rhombi in bars the means.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.
Total research man-months in the boxplots are shown in the logarithmic scale.
The results of natural sciences are not weighted by field.

768－3 AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT FOR RESEARCH PROJECTSThe amount of money spent for research projects was also surveyed. As for the personnel
expenditures, the surveyed amount includes only those for employing researchers and research
assistants specifically for the research projects, which are typically defrayed by extramural funds.
However, the costs that are included in this category varies by country (see below). It wasevident from our interviews with faculty members in Japanese universities that they tended to
exclude their own salary from the research money spent, which is usually defrayed by intramuralfunds. Also, the surveyed amount included only the expenditures for the facilities that wereintroduced specifically for the research projects, and excluded the cost of using other facilities,
including those facilities that had existed. For these reasons, the surveyed amount of money
spent for research projects may be significantly less than the total cost for the research projects,
especially in HEIs in Japan. In addition, the respondents in the US were asked to select the mostappropriate alternatives from several ranges of amount, while those in Japan were asked to fill inapproximate figures. For this reason, the data of the US may be less precise than those of Japan.
In the US, because of differences in the funding system, the survey also included a question on
the percent of the budget spent on senior personnel (the PI and co-PI) salaries (release time,summer salary, etc.).
Exhibit 45 shows that the amount of research money spent for research projects are similarly
distributed in each scientific field in both countries, although the size of the amount differs very
substantially among scientific fields. It also shows that, for the H projects, there is little
difference in the amount of research money spent for research projects in natural sciences as awhole between Japan (265.8 thousand dollar in average) and the US (284.5 thousand dollar in
average) using 1$=100 yen conversion,. In contrast, for the N projects, the project in Japan (70.4
thousand dollar in average) spent less than those in the US (116.2 thousand dollar in average).
For the H projects, a comparison in average and median amounts shows that the projects inJapan spend more than those in the US in chemistry; agricultural sciences & plant & animal
science; and basic life sciences and less in the other scientific fields.
These findings (Exhibit 44 and Exhibit 45) also indicate that the US research projects are
significantly more money intensive than the Japanese projects even for the H projects. . The
average research budget for 12 man-months amounts to 58 thousand dollars in the US and 36
thousand dollars in Japan for H projects, which are based on the median values of man-months
and budget, a 60% premium in the US.
However, it is important to put this difference in context. The research budgeting system in
US and Japanese universities have several important differences that would affect such a
comparison. To begin with, it is very common in the US (unlike Japan) for principal
investigators to charge part of their salary to the grant, and often part of the salaries of othersenior personnel. This includes salary during the summer (as most faculty have 9-monthcontracts), and salary for release time for teaching (which some funding agencies include as anallowable expense). In the survey, we asked what percent of the grant budget was for PI or co-PI
salaries. On average, about 25% of the grant budget was dedicated to faculty salaries. Also,
post-doctoral fellows are supported by the grant in the US, while in Japan, if these researchers
have the position of research associate (joshu) they are likely to be funded out of the university’s
personnel budget. In addition, in the US, it is usual for PhD students, and even some master’s
77

students, to be supported by the grant. This support includes a living stipend and, often, thecost of the student’s tuition. According to Stephan (2010), the cost of a PhD student isapproximately the same as the cost of a post-doc. Finally, in the US, external funding generally
includes a charge for the overhead expenses of the research, in addition to the direct costs ofequipment, supplies, personnel, etc. The rate varies by university, but is typically about 50% of
the direct costs (often higher). Thus, about one-third of the grant budget is allocated to theseoverhead (indirect costs recovery-ICR) expenses. One way to interpret this difference across thetwo countries is that US universities more explicitly budget the true costs of doing the research,
including charging the grant for much of the personnel expenses (part of the PI and co-PI salaries
and all of the post-doc and graduate research assistant expenses), as well as the costs to theuniversity of maintaining the research infrastructure (buildings, computers, libraries,
administrative staff, etc.).
Using the data from the survey, we can make a rough estimate of the affect of these policy
differences on the average budgets. Imagine if the Japanese university was using a US-stylebudgeting system. If 25% of the US budget cost is for senior personnel, then we can say that thiswould add one-third to the Japanese budget. In addition, we find that US projects, on average,
hired one more person specifically for the project (for example, a post-doc), out of a total teamsize of about 5 authors, or 20% of the team (adding another 25% to the Japanese budget). In
addition, the average project included just under 1 graduate student, which would also likely becharged to the grant, adding another 25% to the Japanese budget. Finally, these additional
personnel charges, plus the base budget (assuming costs for equipment and suppliers are similarin the two countries) would be inflated by 50% to cover the indirect costs. Thus, if the Japanese
universities budgeted using the US practices, the baseline budget X would become
X(1+.33+.25+.25)(1.5)=2.75X, i.e., the base budget plus 33% for PI salaries, 25% for post-doc, 25%
for graduate research assistant, all of which is multiplied by 50% for ICR. Given thesedifferences, it is not surprising that there is a substantial premium per man-month in the US
budgets. Thus, we should be careful when comparing budget numbers across countries,
especially for university-based projects.

78

Exhibit 45 Amount of money spent directly used for the research project by field(a) Japan
554
1448
71
176
41
99

Minimum
0
0
4
0
1
0

62
20
89
20
70
35

4_Comp&Math

123
248
16
61

0
0
0
0

50
14
10
9

200
60
39
45

1,342
300
85
130

200,000
50,000400
20,000

243.6
64.0
27.3
42.7

5_Eng

68
133

1
0

100
20

358
100

1,347
410

60,00040,000

367.4
103.8

30
85
64
196

0
0
0
0

34
20
50
5

200
50
173
30

422
300
600
96

8,000
300,000
6,000
10,0006_Env/Eco&Geo

139.5
94.0
154.4
24.4

60
132
81
318
39

8
0
0
0
0

150
20
200
30
1

350
69
400
90
9

900
230
2,000
340
55

5,000
4,000
56,00020,000
3,000

356.7
66.8
454.2
99.8
15.0

Respondents

693
1349
65
119
22
46

Minimum
5
5
5
5
100
5

4_Comp&Math

95
157
37
89

5
5
5
5

100
100
100
5

175
100
100
100

375
175
175
175

100,000
100,000
875
62,500

281.0
97.3
83.0
49.8

5_Eng

53
101

5
5

100
100

175
100

1,750
175

100,000
100,000

452.6
122.2

6_Env/Eco&Geo

67
119
144
283

5
5
5
5

100
100
100
5

175
175
175
100

375
375
1,750
175

100,000
87,500100,000
100,000

252.1
164.2
379.0
74.3

58
97
152
338
70
131

5
5
5
5
5
5

100
100
100
100
5
5

175
100
175
175
100
100

625
175
625
375
175
175

6,250
87,500100,000
100,000
100,000
37,500

235.3
84.2
343.1
195.8
67.5
54.2

Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space

7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim
8.2_Basic_LifeMedianS_Social

Average

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Q1

unit: $1K
Q3
Maximum Average
997 200,000
265.8
300 300,000
70.4
748
30,000289.5
30050,00082.1
1,000
50,000352.3
40030,000117.9

Median
300
60
320
60
300
110

Respondents

100,000(b) US
Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space

7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim
8.2_Basic_LifeMedianS_Social

Average1

Note1:

Note2:
Note3:
Note4:
Note5:

10

100

1,000

10,000Q1Median
100
175
100
100
100
175
100
100
175
375
100
175

unit: $1K
Q3
Maximum Average
625 100,000
284.5
175 100,000
116.2
375
62,500165.7
175 100,000
130.2
625
6,250
380.2
375
8,750
191.4

100,000

Red boxplots indicate the distributions for the H projects; and blue ones for the N projects. Left end of boxes indicate the first quartiles;
and right end of boxes the third quartiles. Left end of whiskers indicate the 5th percentile; and right end of whiskers the 95th percentile.
The red bands in bars indicate the medians; and rhombi in bars the means.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.
Amounts of research money spent in the boxplots are shown in the logarithmic scale.
1$=100 yen conversion,
The results of natural sciences are not weighted by field.

798－4 SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS
8－4－1 Combination of Multiple Sources of Funds
Research projects are conducted by using various kinds of sources of funds. Exhibit 46 shows
the combinations of sources of funds and, if any, number of extramural funds for research
projects by sector. It shows that the nature of the combinations differs among sectors both inJapan and in the US. In private firms, about a half to three-fourths of research projects are
conducted by using only intramural fund. In PRIs, about a half of research projects in the US
are conducted by using only intramural fund, while only about one-sixth to a quarter of research
projects in Japan are done so. In contrast, in HEIs, about 82 to 95% of research projects are
conducted by using extramural funds. In HEIs and PRIs, the H projects are more likely to be
conducted by using extramural funds than the N projects in both countries.
There is a difference in the combinations of sources of funds between Japan and the US. For
HEIs, in Japan, two-thirds of the research projects are conducted by using both intramural andextramural funds. In particular, 42% of the H projects are conducted by using intramural andtwo or more extramural funds. Only 27% of the H projects are conducted by using only
extramural funds. On the other hand, in the US, 59% of the H projects are conducted by using
only extramural funds. Also, 36% of the H projects and 37% of the N projects are conducted byusing only one extramural fund.
Those findings indicate that major sources of funds for supporting research projects aredifferent between Japan and the US. The research projects, in Japan, use both intramural andextramural funds in both HEIs and PRIs, while, in the US, those in HEIs use mainly extramuralfunds; and those in PRIs use significantly intramural fund.

80Exhibit 46 Combination of sources of funds(a) Japan, natural sciences
All_sectors_H(Weighted)

11%

23%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

HEIs_H(394)

37%

25%

7%

13%

32%

16%

27%

24%

9%

42%

12%

7%

15%

HEIs_N(1128)

18%

34%

33%

8%

7%

PRIs_H(114)

16%

37%

31%

12%

4%

13%

5%

PRIs_N(214)28%

Private_firms_H(41)

35%

19%

49%

15%

Private_firms_N(85)

22%

72%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Only intermural

Intramural + one extramural

One extramural

Two or more extramural

60%

12%
14%

7%

80%

90%

70%

2%
5% 2%

100%

Intramural + two or more extramural(b) US, natural sciences
All_sectors_H(Weighted)

14%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

HEIs_H(449)

18%

23%

5%

HEIs_N(870)

20%

19%

11%

21%

33%

23%

11%

37%

44%

20%

53%

15%

11%

21%

63%

4%

Private_firms_N(39)

62%

5% 3%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Only intermural

Intramural + one extramural

One extramural

Two or more extramural

60%

15%

5%

Private_firms_H(24)

0%

13%

36%

21%

PRIs_N(116)

Note3:

32%

17%

16%

PRIs_H(80)Note1:
Note2:

16%

8%

70%

10%

18%

17%

8%

28%

80%

3%

3%

90%

100%

Intramural + two or more extramural

In each sector, the upper figure shows the result of the H projects and the lower figure shows the result of the N projects
The “intramural fund” indicates fund of the institutions that the research team members belong to, based on the government grants for
operative expenses etc. for the HEIs, and the internal fund for private firms.
The “extramural” covers both the fund from the institution-base as well as the funds from the project-base programs.

818－4－2 Disaggregated sources of funds
Exhibit 47 shows the combinations of sources of fund by type of fund.
In terms of simple average of the combinations of sources of funds in a country as a whole bothfor the H projects and for the N ones, more than half of the fund of a research project is
supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (e.g. KAKEN), the funds for academic
fundamental research, and intramural funds in Japan, while two-thirds of the fund of a research
project is supported by mission-oriented public funds and intramural funds in the US.
In terms of weighted average of the combinations of sources of funds in a country for the H
projects, mission-oriented public funds become significantly more important (38% in Japan, and
50% in the US). Still, in Japan, KAKEN accounts for 27% of the total fund, and plays animportant role for supporting research projects.
Exhibit 48 shows the combinations of sources of fund by type of sector and by broad scientificfields.
For HEIs, in Japan, in any of three broad scientific fields, KAKEN accounts for around
one-third to a half of the total fund. In contrast, in the US, NSF fund accounts for aroundone-fourth in physical sciences, and mission-oriented public funds from NIH accounts for
one-third to a half in life sciences and medicines.
Those differences in the combinations of sources of funds between Japan and the US are likely
to reflect the differences in systems of public research funding and functions of higher education
institutions (HEIs) and public research institutions (PRIs). In Japan, fundamental research ismainly supported by KAKEN as well as major mission-oriented research funds, such as research
programs of JST under the auspices of MEXT, ones of NEDO under the auspices of METI, and the
Health and Labor Sciences Research Grants. On the other hand, in the US, there are many
governmental organizations, such as NIH, DOD, and DOE, for providing mission-oriented publicfunds to support fundamental research. In addition, the compositions of sources of extramuralfunds are much less different in Japan than in the US among scientific fields.

82

Exhibit 47 Sources of funding(a) Simple average

100%
90%

4%
5%
8%

5%
3%
7%

80%
70%

40%
30%

28%
4%

33%

3%

Other (such as Foundations)
Funds from foreign gov.

43%

20%
10%

12%

7%
3%
7%

22%

60%
50%

2%
2%
7%

14%
3%

45%

36%

Funds from firms
Missoin oriented public funds

11%
2%

KAKEN/NSF
Center grants

34%

26%

24%

JP, H

US, H

JP, N

US, N

1%
4%
9%

5%
3%
7%

3%
3%
13%

Intramural funds

0%(b) Weighted average

100%
90%

4%
5%
8%

80%
70%

Funds from foreign gov.

22%
38%

60%

50%
40%
30%

43%

Funds from firms
50%
Missoin oriented public funds

33%
27%
3%

20%
10%

Other (such as Foundations)

14%
3%

2%
26%

KAKEN/NSF
8%
2%

Center grants
Intramural funds

19%

24%

21%

JP, H, W

US, H

US, H, W

0%
JP, H
Note1:

Note2:

Mission-oriented public funds in Japan includes funds from JST and NEDO; Health and Labor Sciences Research Grants; othercompetitive grants; and non-competitive grants from government. Mission-oriented public funds in US includes funds from NIH, DOD
and DOE; other competitive grants; and non-competitive grants from government.
Extremely large projects (top1%) are excluded from the weighted average.

83

Exhibit 48 Composition of Sources of Funds by Field and Sector (a research project base)(a) Japan
HEIs_Phy_H(255)

23%

4%

HEIs_Phy_N(640)

39%

40%

HEIs_Life_H(85)

10%

4%

HEIs_Life_N(335)
18%

4%

3%

4%

PRIs_Phy_H(58)

36%
40%

0%

10%

30%

7%

5%
18%

20%

7%

5%

28%

16%

52%

PRIs_Life_N(77)8%8%6% 6% 2%4% 4% 3% 8% 2%

3%

45%

PRIs_Life_H(46)

5%

11%

4%

50%

PRIs_Phy_N(112)8% 3% 5% 2%

4%

39%
37%

HEIs_Med_N(153)

4%

33%

47%
34%

HEIs_Med_H(54)

11%

4%

15%

7%

2% 2%

7% 4%

16%

4%

10%

10%

12%

3%

13%

3% 10%

5%

20%

3%3%

5%

14%

5%

9% 2%

18%

2%2%2%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Internal funds

Center grants (such as 21st Century COE, etc.)

Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research

Health and Labor Sciences Research Grants

JST

NEDO

Other external funds from Japanese gov.

External funds from foreign gov.

External funds from firms

Other (such as Foundations)(b) US
HEIs_Phy_H(219)17%

HEIs_Phy_N(399)

4%

29%

25%

HEIs_Life_H(138)11%

HEIs_Life_N(290)3%
13%HEIs_Med_H(92)

17%

8%

7%
13%

48%

4% 3% 4%6% 5% 6%5% 3% 8%7% 3% 5%

52%

5% 2%

3%

PRIs_Phy_N(69)

9%

8%

40%

4%
36%

PRIs_Phy_H(46)13%6% 6% 5%48%

23%

HEIs_Med_N(181)

8%

23%

32%
7% 2% 5%

59%

6%
14%

10%

15%
7%

4%
11%

16%

16%

6% 3%

16%

4%

PRIs_Life_H(22)81%

3% 10% 3%

PRIs_Life_N(40)

81%

2%3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

9%

2%

90%

100%

Internal funds

Center grants (such as ERCs)

NSF

NIH

DOD

DOE

Other external funds from US gov.

External funds from foreign gov.

External funds from firms

Other (such as Foundations)Note1:The “intramural fund” covers the fund of the institutions that the research team members belong to, based on the government grant for
operative expenses etc. for the HEIs, and its own fund for private firms.

84

9

OUTPUTS AND IMPACTS OF THE RESEARCH PROJECTS

9－1 NUMBER OF REFEREED PAPERS FROM RESEARCH PROJECTS
Exhibit 49 shows the distribution of the refereed papers by field (including both papers written
in English and in Japanese or other languages). In Exhibit 49, red boxplots indicate the
distributions for the H projects; and blue ones for the N projects. The left end of boxes indicatesthe first quartile; and the right end of boxes the third quartile. The left end of whiskers indicatesthe 5th percentile; and the right end of whiskers the 95th percentile. The red bands in bars indicate
the medians; and rhombi in bars the means.
In all fields combined, H projects in Japan produced 15 papers for the median and 43 papers on
average. N projects produced 8 for its median and 20 on average. In the US, the number of
papers produced is smaller, with an average of 16 and median of 5 for H projects and an averageof 7 (and median of 3) for N projects. This (along with the data on man-months) suggests thatprojects are smaller (or the concept of “project” is interpreted more narrowly) in the US than inJapan. In almost all fields the averages are larger than the medians, due to a small number ofvery productive projects, and many with modest productivity (with the first quartile often being 3
or less, especially for the US and for N projects in Japan). In addition to very large project effects,
this skew in the distribution likely reflects the uncertainties (and cumulative nature) of the
discovery process in scientific research1. The following discussion uses mainly the medians of
the number of papers from a project.
We can see that H projects produce substantially more papers than N projects in all fields. In
all fields aggregated, for Japan, the ratio of the median number of papers across H and N projects(15/8=1.9) is larger than the ratio of research’s man-months (115/76=1.5), although it is smaller than
the ratio of research fund ($266K/$70K=3.8). In the US, we see the same pattern, although thethree ratios are more similar: 1.7 for papers, 1.4 for researcher months, and 2.4 for budget. In
both countries, the inter-quartile range (the distance between the first quartile and the third
quartile) is much larger in H projects, compared to N projects. This indicates that a relatively
large share of H projects generate a large number of the refereed papers.

1

The number of papers may follow a power law distribution than a log normal distribution. Newman M. E. J.
(2006), “Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law,” Contemporary Physics, 46 ; 323 – 351.

85

Exhibit 49 Distributions of the number of refereed papers yielded from research project by field(a) Japan

Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space
4_Comp&Math
5_Eng
6_Env/Eco&Geo
7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim

8.2_Basic_LifeMedianS_Social

Averag

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Respondents

Minimum

554
1434
71
180
43
98

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

126
250
16
59
67
136
29
83
61
187
59
130
82
311
39

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Respondents

Minimum

708
1354
64
118
21
47

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

96
156
38
91
54
100
67
126
152
280
60
96
156
340
74
130

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Q1
Median
7.0
15.0
3.0
8.0
9.0
20.0
3.0
9.0
10.0
24.0
4.3
12.0
9.3
4.0
4.8
3.0
8.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
5.0
2.0
4.5
4.0
6.5
3.0
1.5

17.0
9.0
8.0
5.0
17.0
7.5
13.0
8.0
10.0
6.0
10.0
7.0
20.0
7.0
3.0

unit: papers
Maximum Average
Q3
40.0
610.0
42.6
18.0
950.0
20.2
34.0
374.0
44.4
22.3
302.0
18.8
52.0
500.0
58.5
30.0
365.0
29.8
51.5
20.0
10.8
10.0
42.0
19.3
25.0
24.5
50.0
15.0
21.0
13.0
37.8
15.0
6.5

500.0
400.0
24.0
120.0
610.0
188.0
140.0
950.0
140.0
708.0
190.0
124.0
419.0
408.0
160.0

54.5
24.5
9.3
11.5
49.2
17.8
29.6
30.5
33.1
22.3
24.3
12.8
40.1
16.3
13.6

100

(b) US

Nat_Sci
1_Chem2_Mat
3_Phys&Space
4_Comp&Math
5_Eng
6_Env/Eco&Geo
7_Clin_Med&Psy
8.1_Agr&Plant&Anim

8.2_Basic_Life
S_Social
Note1:

Note2:
Note3:
Note4:MedianAverag

Q1
Median
3.0
5.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
6.5
2.0
4.0
5.0
10.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.8
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0

6.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
9.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0

unit: papers
Maximum Average
Q3
12.0
530.0
16.3
6.0
300.0
7.0
13.5
100.0
12.0
10.0
130.0
8.6
15.0
250.0
23.3
7.0
147.0
9.6
15.0
7.0
9.5
5.0
19.3
5.0
11.0
6.8
12.5
5.0
10.0
5.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
5.0

500.0
85.0
100.0
100.0
250.0
150.0
300.0
220.0
530.0
300.0
100.0
71.0
300.0
165.0
200.0
75.0

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Red boxplots indicate the distributions for the H projects; and blue ones for the N projects. Left end of boxes indicate the first quartiles;
and right end of boxes the third quartiles. Left end of whiskers indicate the 5th percentile; and right end of whiskers the 95th percentile.
The red bands in bars indicate the medians; and rhombi in bars the means.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.
Results show the summation of refereed papers written in Japanese, English, and other language. The responses saying the number ofrefereed paper from the projects was 0 were excluded from the results.
The results of natural sciences are not weighted by field.

86

27.1
6.7
8.2
6.4
23.1
7.1
16.3
7.2
16.2
6.2
10.5
4.4
12.4
7.9
10.8
4.8

9－2 GRADUATE EDUCATION THROUGH THE RESEARCH PROJECT
In addition to research papers, an important outcome of research is educated students. Exhibit
50 and Exhibit 51 show the share of research projects that produced a master's degree and adoctoral degree. In Japan, across all fields combined, almost a half of research projects produceda master's degree, and about 70% of them produced doctoral degrees. In the US, we see
somewhat fewer projects producing PhDs (although, as noted above, projects may be defined
more narrowly), and many fewer projects producing master’s degrees. In both countries, a
research project is more likely to produce doctoral degrees more often than master’s degrees.
As we showed above, doctoral students are often the first authors of the papers when the orderof the authors is according to their contribution to the research, while it is rare that master orundergraduate students are the first authors. This is consistent with a larger incidence ofdoctoral degrees from research projects. H projects tend to produce more PhD degrees than do
N projects.
Exhibit 52 shows the percent of projects that trained post-doctoral fellows. Post-doctoral
fellows are becoming a key part of the science system (Stephan, 2010). We find that about 60%
of H projects in both countries included a post-doctoral fellow, while the rate is substantiallylower for N projects (around 40%).

Exhibit 50 Share of research projects that produced master's degree recipients(a) Japan(b) USNatural Sciences (weighted)

49%
47%

Natural Sciences (weighted)

20%
21%

1.Chemistry

83%
70%

1.Chemistry

25%
22%

2.Materials Science

63%
65%

2.Materials Science

33%
39%

3.Physics & Space Science

59%
61%

3.Physics & Space Science

20%
15%

4.Computer Science &… 12%27%

4.Computer Science & … 31%
48%
5.Engineering

60%
65%

5.Engineering

33%
34%

6.Environment/Ecology &… 40%
47%

6.Environment/Ecology &… 13%
32%

7.Clinical Medicine & … 20%
18%

7.Clinical Medicine &… 14%
13%

8.1.Agriculture Science

58%
49%

8.1.Agriculture Science

24%
26%

8.2.Basic Life Science

50%
46%

8.2.Basic Life Science

13%
18%

S.Social Sciences

28%

S.Social Sciences

17%
23%

0%
H projects

Note1:
Note2:
Note3:

20%

40%

60%

80%

0%

100%

20%

H projects

N projects

Both domestic and foreign born students.
In each field, the upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.

87

40%

N projects

60%

80%

100%

Exhibit 51 Share of research projects that produced PhD recipients(a) Japan(b) USNatural Sciences (weighted)

73%
65%

Natural Sciences (weighted)

59%
50%

1.Chemistry

76%
62%

1.Chemistry

76%
69%

2.Materials Science

72%
56%

2.Materials Science

67%
68%

3.Physics & Space Science

73%
66%

3.Physics & Space Science

67%
53%

4.Computer Science &… 64%
57%

4.Computer Science & … 63%
48%
5.Engineering

76%
62%

5.Engineering

71%
63%

6.Environment/Ecology &… 53%
62%

6.Environment/Ecology &… 64%
55%

7.Clinical Medicine & … 70%
65%

7.Clinical Medicine &… 33%
23%

8.1.Agriculture Science

82%
66%

8.1.Agriculture Science

65%
39%

8.2.Basic Life Science

79%
74%

8.2.Basic Life Science

55%
60%

S.Social Sciences

50%

S.Social Sciences

46%
26%

0%
H projects

Note1:
Note2:
Note3:

20%

40%

60%

80%

0%

100%

20%

H projects

N projects

40%

60%

80%

100%

60%

80%

100%

N projects

Both domestic and foreign born students.
In each field, the upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.

Exhibit 52 Share of research projects that trained postdoctoral fellows(a) Japan(b) USNatural Sciences (weighted)

61%
37%

Natural Sciences (weighted)

61%
41%

1.Chemistry

68%
32%

1.Chemistry

63%
46%

2.Materials Science

60%
29%

2.Materials Science

62%
39%

3.Physics & Space Science

67%
44%

3.Physics & Space Science

72%
49%

4.Computer Science &… 21%
19%

4.Computer Science & … 31%
20%
5.Engineering

50%
29%

5.Engineering

61%
22%

6.Environment/Ecology &… 63%
36%

6.Environment/Ecology &… 46%
32%

7.Clinical Medicine & … 56%
37%

7.Clinical Medicine &… 54%
40%

8.1.Agriculture Science

75%
40%

8.1.Agriculture Science

65%
26%

8.2.Basic Life Science

67%
48%

8.2.Basic Life Science

71%
62%

S.Social Sciences

28%

S.Social Sciences

15%
17%

0%
H projects

Note1:
Note2:
Note3:

20%

40%

60%

80%

0%

100%

20%

H projects

N projects

Both domestic and foreign born students.
In each field, the upper figure is for the H projects and the lower figure is for the N projects.
Result of social sciences in Japanese H projects was not shown due to the small number of responses.

88

40%

N projects

9－3 PATENT APPLICATION, LICENSE AGREEMENT OR PATENT ASSIGNMENT
Exhibit 53 shows the incidence of patent applications (domestic and/or foreign application) andof license agreements (or patent assignment). In Japan 39% of the H projects and 22% of the N
projects led to at least one patent application on average. In addition, the incidence of a foreign
patent application conditional on a patent application is 63% in the H projects and 50% in the N
projects. For the US, the patenting rates are lower: 17% for H projects and under 10% for N
projects, and only about 25% of H patents and 18% of N patents were also applied for overseas.
Thus, patenting rates, and especially international patenting, appears to be greater in Japan.
However, it is important to note that the projects are more broadly defined in Japan (roughly 3
times more man-months and published papers), although patenting probability is still higher inJapan, controlling for the size of projects (man-years), as seen Exhibit 54).
If we focus on sectors, the majority of Japanese research projects of private firm led to patentapplication: 78% from the H projects and 63% from the N projects. Among US industry
respondents, over half of H projects, but only 21% of N projects led to a patent. In Japan, we see
somewhat higher rates of patenting in public research institutes than in universities, with the
opposite ranking in the US.

89

Exhibit 53 Patent applications arising from the findings of a research project(a) Japan(b) US

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

39%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

22%

HEIs_H(396)

PRIs_H(116)

80%

48%

PRIs_N(213)

52%

32%

Private_firms_H(41)

68%

78%

Private_firms_N(86)

20%

Yes

60%

80%

8%

92%

HEIs_H(474)16%

HEIs_N(968)8%

PRIs_H(83)

8%

92%

PRIs_N(120) 4%

96%

84%
92%

54%

Private_firms_N(42)

37%

40%

83%

Private_firms_H(24)

22%

63%

0%

Note1:

64%

20%

17%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

78%

36%

HEIs_N(1132)

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

61%

100%

0%

No

46%

21%

79%

20%

Yes

40%

60%

80%

100%

No

In each sector, the upper figure shows the result of the H projects and the lower figure shows the result of the N projects

Exhibit 54 Patent applications by project size(a) H projects(b) N projects

70%
H_US

N_JP
Patent application rate

Patent application rate

60%

50%
H_JP

50%
40%
30%

20%
10%
0%

N_US

40%
30%
20%

10%
0%

0.5 1

2

4

8

16 32 64 128 129 or more
man-years

0.5 1

2

4

8

16 32 64 128 129 or more
man-years

Note 1: Horizontal axis represents a number of research man-years of a project and the vertical axis represents the average incidence of domestic
patenting from a project.
Note2: The results are not weighted by field.

90

As for a license agreement and the assignment of patents1, in both countries, licensing or
assignment are significantly more frequent for the H projects on average (Exhibit 55). We also
see that licensing or assignment is more common in Japan than in the US, for both H and N
projects, suggesting that commercialization rates (measured by patents or by licensing) are higher,
per project, in Japan than in the US. Since higher quality patent is more likely to be licensed,
these results suggest that there is a positive correlation between the quality of academic
publication and the quality of a patent at project level, consistent with the patterns observed
across individuals (See Stephan (2010) for a review). However, interestingly, for private firms, inJapan there are more license agreements and assignments in the N projects than in the H projects,
but not in the US. These results suggest that technology markets operate differently in the twocountries.
As Exhibit 56 indicates, know-how is supplied for most cases when patent license agreement
and assignments occur, in both countries. As Jensen and Thursby (2001) suggest, manytechnologies are still very nascent when first patented, and require the know-how of the inventor
in order to move the technology toward commercialization.

Exhibit 55 Licensing or assignments of any research results(a) Japan(b) US

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

14%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

7%

65%

73%

HEIs_H(396)15%

HEIs_N(1127)

7%

66%
74%

20%

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

9%

85%

6%

20%

All_sectors_N(Weighted) 4%

90%

5%

19%

HEIs_H(486)

8%

86%

6%

20%

HEIs_N(985) 5%

91%

5%

PRIs_H(115)

13%

67%

20%

PRIs_H(83) 2%

94%

4%

PRIs_N(211)

9%

69%

21%

PRIs_N(124)

93%

6%

Private_firms_H(41)

10%

20%

Private_firms_H(26)15%

Private_firms_N(43)Private_firms_N(85)

0%

Yes

Note1:

71%

25%

20%

No, neither

60%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Don't know

23%

0%

Yes

54%

9%

23%

86%

20%

No, neither

40%

5%

60%

80%

100%

Don't know

In each sector, the upper figure shows the result of the H projects and the lower figure shows the result of the N projects

1

It is important to note that an assignment of a patent can take place without a patent application, since the legal
right to apply for a patent can be transferred.

91

Exhibit 56 Provision of know-how(a) Japan(b) US

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

74%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

All_sectors_H(Weighted)

26%

82%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

18%

HEIs_H(58)

74%

26%

HEIs_H(37)

HEIs_N(70)

79%

21%

HEIs_N(41)

PRIs_H(15)67%

PRIs_N(20)

33%

90%

10%

25%

Private_firms_H(5)29%

Private_firms_N(4)Yes

Note1:

80%

100%

No

73%

27%

59%

41%

100%

75%

60%

44%

100%

71%

40%

56%

PRIs_N(1)Private_firms_H(4)

20%

24%

PRIs_H(2)Private_firms_N(21)

0%

76%

80%
25%

0%

Yes

20%

20%
75%

40%

60%

No

In each sector, the upper figure shows the result of the H projects and the lower figure shows the result of the N projects

92

80%

100%

9－4 ESTABLISHMENT OF START-UP COMPANY AND CONTRIBUTION TO THE STANDARDIZATION
Exhibit 57 and Exhibit 58 show the rates of startups by organization type and by field. In bothcountries, the share of the research projects that led to a new start-up company is only a few
percents (less than 5%, even for H projects). The survey also asked if the members of the project
considered starting a firm based on the project. If we include those who seriously considered
starting a firm, the average increases to about 10% in total, suggesting that the possibility of astart-up company is considered as a real option. Among H projects in the US, startups weremost common (more than 5% of projects in a field) in chemistry, materials science, engineeringand basic life sciences. For H projects in Japan, only materials science and engineering wereabove 5% of projects.
In Japan, the survey also asked if the project contributed to a standard. About 10% of projects
reported contributing to a standard or that such a standard was under serious consideration.

93

Exhibit 57 Start-up companies established based on the findings(a) Japan(b) US

All_sectors_H(Weighted) 2%

98%

All_sectors_H(Weighted) 4%

96%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

98%

All_sectors_N(Weighted)

99%

HEIs_H(396) 3%

97%

HEIs_H(485) 4%

96%

HEIs_N(1142) 2%

98%

HEIs_N(986)98%

PRIs_H(115)98%

PRIs_H(83) 2%

98%

PRIs_N(214)100%

PRIs_N(123)

99%

95%

Private_firms_H(26)Private_firms_H(41) 5%
Private_firms_N(86)

0%

20%

40%

Yes

Note1:

12%

88%

Private_firms_N(43) 5%

100%

60%

80%

100%

0%

No

95%

20%

40%

Yes

60%

80%

100%

No

In each sector, the upper figure shows the result of the H projects and the lower figure shows the result of the N projects

Exhibit 58 Start-up companies established based on the findings by field(a) H projects(b) N projects

Natural Sciences (weighted)

2%4%Natural Sciences (weighted)

2%
1%

1.Chemistry3%8%

1.Chemistry1%
2%

2.Materials Science

5%9%2.Materials Science

2%4%

3.Physics & Space Science2%
1%

3.Physics & Space Science0%
1%

4.Computer Science & … 0%
3%
5.Engineering

4.Computer Science & … 5%
1%

7%
11%

5.Engineering

2%
1%

6.Environment/Ecology & … 0%0%

6.Environment/Ecology & … 0%
1%

7.Clinical Medicine & … 3%
3%

7.Clinical Medicine & … 2%
1%

8.1.Agriculture Science2%0%

8.1.Agriculture Science2%1%

8.2.Basic Life Science

0%6%

8.2.Basic Life Science

4%
1%

S.Social Sciences

1%

S.Social Sciences

0%
1%

0%
Japan

Note1:

5%
US

10%

15%

0%
Japan

In each field, the upper figure is for Japan and the lower figure is for the US.

94

5%
US

10%

15%

9－5 SUMMARY OF THE OUTPUT OF RESEARCH PROJECTS
Finally, Exhibit 59 provides a summary of the outputs from a research project. First, we can seethat H projects are almost always more productive than N projects, on nearly every dimension,
with MS degrees in the US and the training of US born post doctoral fellows being the only
exception. We can also see that training researchers is the major output of the research (besides
the publication itself). We also see that foreign-born personnel are widely participating in US
science. In particular, projects are especially likely to train foreign-born (compared to US born)
post-doctoral fellows, and that this is even more true for the H projects. A half of H projects
engaged a foreign-born post-doctoral fellow. The US projects were also more likely to educate
foreign-born PhD students than US born. However, US born master’s students are morecommon than are foreign-born.
The gap between H and N projects is especially sharp for commercialization, with H projects
producing patents, licenses and startups at much higher rates than N projects.
Exhibit 59 Summary of the outputs from a research project
Japan

US

H project(a)

N project(b)

H project(a)

N project(b)

Total research man-months (Median)

100

72

1.4

36

24

1.5

Refereed papers (Median)

15

8

1.9

5

3

1.7

All

61%

37%

1.6

61%

41%

1.5

Domestic born

50%

28%

1.8

15%

19%

0.8

Foreign born

36%

20%

1.8

46%

30%

1.5

All

73%

65%

1.1

59%

50%

1.2

Domestic born

66%

58%

1.1

36%

27%

1.3

Foreign born

32%

21%

1.6

37%

31%

1.2

All

49%

47%

1.0

20%

21%

0.9

Domestic born

47%

45%

1.0

13%

15%

0.9

Foreign born

11%

8%

1.4

8%

9%

0.9

Patent applications

39%

22%

1.8

16%

8%

2.1

Start up

2%

2%

1.4

4%

1%

3.1

Licensing

14%

7%

1.9

9%

4%

2.0

Standard

13%

8%

1.6

Commissioned research and joint research

78%

60%

1.3

Technical guidance

39%

27%

1.4

Research tools

50%

41%

1.2

Follow-up research

90%

75%

1.2

Training of Post Doctoral fellows

Ph. D recipients

Master's degree recipients

Note1:
Note2:
Note3:(a)/(b)(a)/(b)

The weighted result of natural sciences.
Project size (man-months and the number of papers) is significantly smaller in the US than in Japan, as shown in the above Table..
In getting the incidence of outputs we count “don’t know” responses as negative responses.

95

10

CONCLUSIONSThis paper has reported the initial findings from a large-scale survey of Japanese and US
researchers on the knowledge creation process in science from a comparative perspective.
One-third of the samples are from highly cited papers in each science field by year (top 1% in theworld, H papers) and the rest are from randomly selected papers (N papers). We call the
research projects that yielded H (N) papers H projects (N projects). More than 80% of the
respondents executed the central part (or a part of the central part) of the projects and around 80%of the respondents played either the leading role or at least some role in the management of the
projects.
The survey characterized the motivations of the research projects; the knowledge sources which
inspired the projects; uncertainty in the knowledge creation process; research competition;
composition of the research team; sources of research money; and the research outputs, including
papers, patents, license/assignment and startups.
Major findings are as follow:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

More than 70% of the responding scientists belong to higher education institutions in bothcountries (73% of the H papers in Japan and 76% of the H papers in the US); 10% to 20% of
the respondents belong to pubic research organizations (higher in Japan); and around 5% of
the respondents belong to private firms in both countries.
Japanese respondents are younger: as for submission age, the average ages of respondents
in the natural sciences are 42.8 (H papers) and 43.7 (N papers) in the Japanese sample; and45.6 (H papers) and 46.7 (N papers) in the US sample. Around 90% of respondents (89% inJapan and 92% in the US) had doctoral degrees when the research was launched. Japanese
respondents are as mobile across organizations as US respondents, controlling for age.
Pasteur’s quadrant (both “Pursuit of fundamental principles/understandings” and “Solving
specific issues in real life” are very important motivations) occupies a significant part ofscientific research in both countries. Among H projects, the share in Pasteur’s quadrant ismore than twice as high in the US than in Japan (33% vs. 15%).
Bohr’s quadrant (only “Pursuit of fundamental principles/understandings” is very
important) accounts for the largest share of research projects (45% (35%) of the H (N)projects in Japan and 46% (42%) of H (N) projects in the US. Edison’s quadrant (only“Solving specific issues in real life” is very important) accounts for 15% (16%) of the H (N)projects in Japan and 11% (15%) of the H (N) projects in the US.
Research involves very substantial uncertainty in both countries. Both the main result of
the paper and the research process were as initially expected or planned only for 11% of the
H papers in Japan and 14% in the US (17% of the N papers in both countries). Research
process uncertainty is high in Pasteur's and Bohr’s quadrants in both countries.
In both countries, the research output of the paper often found answers to questions not
originally posed, that is, serendipity in the sense of (Stephan (2010)) occurred. H papers
involve more serendipity and a serendipitous output is more often observed in a research
project involving more process uncertainty in both countries. Thus, scientific research not
96

7.

8.

9.

10.
11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

only yields the results (sometimes more than expected) to the original questions but also
those to the questions not originally posed. Appreciating such option value would be
important for scientific research funding.
In both countries, most researchers recognize the extent of research competition ex-ante(only a minority chose “don’t know”). A significant number of researchers were concernedwith priority loss (more than 50% of the researchers in Japan and 23% of them in the US for
H papers). Such concern is stronger in H projects than in N projects. It increases with thenumber of competitors recognized ex-ante. Priority threat is seen as greater in Japan than in
the US.
By far, the most important knowledge source for suggesting the research project is scientific
literature in both countries. Colleagues in the organization (a university, a laboratory, etc.),
visiting researchers or post-doctoral students in the organization and past researchcollaborators follow scientific literature in both countries. The locations of the important
knowledge sources are often domestic (exceeding 60%) for the US scientists, while they areoften abroad for Japanese scientists, except for the knowledge sources embodied inresearchers and facilities.
Research is more actively managed in H projects than in N projects in both countries:
ambitious goal setting, information sharing and discussions in a team, division of researchtasks for outsourcing of a research task, improvement of facilities and program, anddevelopment of a research community
US scientists seem to make more use of research tool databases, and to engage remoteresearchers, using the internet, in their research projects.
Most scientific research is done by a team in both countries. The share of single authoredpapers is 3.0% in Japan and 5.4% in the US for H papers. The median author size is 6 inJapan and 5 in the US for the H papers (4 for N papers in both countries). A researcher who
provides only materials or research facilities is often added as an author in both countries,
and authorship is more expansive in Japan, which is consistent with a larger size of authors
per paper in Japan.
Young scholars (students and postdoctoral fellows) are important contributors for research
efforts in both countries. Post-doctoral students and doctoral students are often the firstauthors of H papers when the order of the authors is according to their contributions inboth countries (young scholars account for 40% in Japan and 50% in the US in the case ofhigher educational institutions).
The involvement of young foreign-born scholars is important in both countries. It accounts
for more than 70% of the first authors of H papers in the US and around one-third in Japan.
Research teams have more diversified memberships in terms of specialized academic fields,
specialized skills, origins of birth and types of sectors in H papers than in N papers in bothcountries. The US teams are significantly more diversified in the origins of birth than theJapanese teams (80% of teams in the US involve researchers from more than one country vs.
50% in Japan for H papers). Given that international co-authorship in terms of the locationsof affiliated organizations of the US is only modestly larger than that of Japan (24% in Japanand 29% in the US in 2005 – 2007), the above difference largely reflects the inflow offoreign-born scholars in the US.
The time-lag between the conception of the research project and its launch is mostly a year
97

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

or less in both countries but has a longer tail in Japan. Time-lag between the launch of the
project and the submission of the focal paper is shorter for H project than for N project andshorter in the US.
In terms of the median of the total labor input per project in natural sciences, the projects inJapan spend about 3 times as much as those in the US in both H and N projects. The
median number of papers published per project is also roughly 3 times larger in Japan thanin the US, suggesting that the concept of “project” is interpreted or defined more narrowly
in the US than in Japan. In addition, the research projects in the US are significantly moremoney intensive than those in Japan. However, some of this difference is due to accounting
practices in the two countries (e.g., the extent to which the grant includes all the direct andindirect costs of research).
H projects are not only large but significantly more money intensive (higher expenses
relative to man-months) than N project in Japan. The median budget of H projects is 5.0(1.8) times more than that of N projects, while the median size of man-months is only 1.4(1.5) times larger in Japan (the US).
The majority of research projects of higher education institutions in Japan were funded by a
combination of intramural and extramural sources. In contrast, more than 50% of research
projects of US universities were funded only by external sources. On the other hand, inpublic research institutions, about a half of research projects in the US are conducted using
only intramural fund, while only about one-sixth to a quarter of research projects in Japanare.
Mission-oriented programs account for a significantly larger share of the research funding
in the US than in Japan (43% (22%) of the H projects on the simple average and 50% (38%)
on the weighted average in the US (Japan)). Industry accounts for a relatively small andsimilar shares of funding in both countries (8% of the H projects in Japan vs. 9% of the H
projects in the US in the simple average). Surprisingly, industry funds a greater share of the
projects of higher educational institutions in Japan than in the US (5% of the H projects and
8% of the N projects in Japan vs. 3% of the H projects and 5% of the N projects in the US). If
we measure industry funding by the percent of projects with at least some industry funding,this contrast is even greater (As for H projects, 24% of Japanese projects have at least someindustry funding, compared to 12% of US projects).
The median number of refereed papers produced by H projects is 1.9 (1.7) times larger thanthat of N projects in Japan (the US), which is larger than the research labor input ratio but
smaller than the research money ratio between H and N projects. The distribution of thenumber of refereed papers produced from a project is highly skewed (it has a long righttail).
Educational outputs of the research projects are also important, especially training of PhDs
and postdoctoral fellows. More than 73% (59%) of H projects produced a PhD in Japan (theUS). Educational outputs are larger in H projects than in N projects in both countries. The
research projects also often produced materials and other research tools.
Research projects resulted in more patent applications in Japan than in the US (39% of the H
projects and 22% in N projects in Japan. The corresponding shares are 16% and 8% in theUS). They also resulted in more licensing or assignments of a research result in Japan (14%of the H projects and 7% of the N projects. The corresponding shares are 9% and 4%). Note,
98

23.

24.

however, that the projects are more broadly defined in Japan (roughly 3 times moreman-months and published papers). H papers are more often commercialized in bothcountries. There exist significant variations across science fields: materials science,chemistry and engineering are the most commercially active fields in both countries, while
life sciences and clinical medicines are only moderately commercially active
A majority of licensing and assignment (70 to 80%) were associated with the provision of
know-how in both countries, indicating the importance of technology transfer effort on thepart of universities.
Only a relatively few research projects resulted in start-ups in both countries (2% of the H
projects in Japan and 4% of the H projects in the US).

There are some important implications of our initial findings upon “research on research” andupon science policy, although many of them are preliminary observations. First, Pasteur’squadrant is quantitatively important in both countries. This implies that complementarity may
exist between science and innovation even at the project level for a significant share of science. In
such areas, a university and industry collaboration would be particularly important.
Second, uncertainty is important in the scientific discovery process, in the sense that scientificresearch not only yields sometimes more than expected results to the original questions but also
those to questions not originally posed. It is important to ensure ex-post flexibility in researchscope to capture unexpected opportunities as well as to appreciate such option value ex-ante forscientific research funding. It will be an important research issue to assess how the funding
system as whole, including intramural funds, function to support the exploitation of uncertainty
and serendipity.
Third, scientists clearly perceive competition ex-ante in both countries, and this priority threat isperceived as greater by the scientist of H projects than those of N projects. However, scientists in
the US generally perceive this priority threat as smaller than in Japan, while the lag between theconception, launch and submission is smaller in the US than in Japan. It will be an importantresearch issue to provide a consistent explanation of these patterns as well as the relationshipbetween the impacts of priority competition on research performance.
Fourth, H projects are not only large but are significantly more money intensive (higher
expenses relative to man-months) than N projects, and especially in Japan. It will be important tounderstand why such is the case.
Fifth, our study shows that the linkage between higher educational institutions and industry isstronger in Japan than in the US, in terms of industry funding, contrary to prevailing views.
Exploration of the reasons for such gap will be important.
Sixth, 70% or more of licensing and assignment were associated with the provision of
know-how, indicating the importance of technology transfer effort on the part of universities.

99

REFERENCES[1] Agrawal, A., Goldfarb, A., 2008, “Restructuring Research: Communication costs and thedemocratization of university innovation,” American Economic Review, 98, 1578–1590[2] Cohen, W., Levinthal, D. (1989). “Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D,” The Economic
Journal, 99, 569–596.
[3] Comroe J. H. and R. D. Dripps, 1976, “Scientific basis for the support of biomedical science,”
Science, 192, 105-11[4] Jones B. F., S. Wuchy and B. Uzzi, 2008, “Multi-University Research Teams: shifting impact,
geography, and stratification in science,” Science, 322, November 21.
[5] Merton, R.K., 1973, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
[6] Nagaoka Sadao and John P. Walsh, 2009, “The R&D process in the US and Japan: Major findings
from the RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey,” RIETI Discussion Papers, 09-E-010[7] Nagaoka S., M. Igami, M. Eto and T. Ijichi, 2010, “Knowledge Creation Process in Science: Basicfindings from a large-scale survey of researchers in Japan,” IIR Working Paper, WP#10-08[8] Newman M. E. J., 2006, “Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law,” Contemporary Physics, 46,
323–351[9] Saka A. and T. Kuwahara, 2008, “Benchmarking Research & Development Capacity of Japan
Based on Dynamic Alteration of Research Activity in the World,” National Institute of Science andTechnology Policy, Research Material-158, September 2008.
[10] Saka A., M. Igami and T. Kuwahara, 2010, “Science Map 2008,” National Institute of Science andTechnology Policy, NISTEP REPORT No.139, May 2010.
[11] Stephan, P., 2010, “The Economics of Science,” in Hall, B.H. and N. Rosenberg (eds.), Handbook of
The Economics of Innovation, Elsevier.
[12] Stokes, D.E., 1997, Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Brooking
Institution Press.
[13] Tomizawa H., T. Hayashi, Y. Yamashita and M. Kondo, 2006, “Characteristics of excellent research
activities: Report of survey on top-researchers’ activities and their views on effects of Japan’sscience and technology policy and R&D status,” National Institute of Science and Technology
Policy, Research Material-122, March 2006.
[14] Wuchty, S., Jones, B., Uzzi, B. (2007). “The increasing dominance of teams in the production ofknowledge,” Science, 316, 1030–1036.
[15] Jensen, R. and M. Thursby. 2001. “Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university
inventions,” American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-259.

100