Overall output of select geographical group comparators and related FP7- and H2020-funded publication output : final report.
Date: 2019-01-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU financing, EU research policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, innovation, knowledge management, research and development, research budget

Overall output  of select 
geographical group 
comparators and related FP7- 
and H2020-funded  publication 
output 

ECDG and Elsevier 
2017 

FINAL  REPORT 

Research and 
Innovation 

 
Overall  output  of  select  geographical  group  comparators  and  related  FP7-  and  H2020-  funded 
publication output 
European  Commission 
Directorate-General  for Research  and Innovation 
Directorate  A — Policy  Development  and Coordination 
Unit  A.5 — Better Regulation   
Contacts:  Konstantia  Argyrou, Arnold Weiszenbacher 
E-mail  RTD-A5-SUPPORT@ec.europa.eu  ; RTD-PUBLICA  TIONS@ec. 
europa.  eu European  Commission  B-1049  Brussels 

Manuscript  completed  in 2017. 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  how ever  it  reflects  the  view s  only  of  the  authors, and 
the Commission  cannot  be held  responsible  for any use w hich may be made  of the information  contained  therein.  

More  information  on the European  Union  is available  on the internet  (http://europa.eu). 

Luxembourg:  Publications  Office of the European  Union,  2017  ©  

ISBN:  978-92-79-99493-7 
DOI:  10.2777/63581 
Catalogue  Number:  KI-02-19-083-EN- N 

European  Union,  2017. 

Reuse  is  authorised  provided  the  source  is  acknow ledged.  The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is 
regulated  by Decision  2011/833/EU  (OJ L 330,  14.12.2011,  p. 39). 

For  any  use  or  reproduction  of  photos  or  other  material  that  is  not  under  the  EU  copyright,  permission  must  be  sought 
directly from the copyright holders. 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

 
ECDG and Elsevier study on overall  output 
of select geographical  group comparators 
and related FP7- and H2020-funded 
publication output

Table of Contents 

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................................  

Scope of analysis for executive summary ..........................................................................................................  

Output, impact, growth, excellence and interdisciplinarity..........................................................................................  

1 

Non-framework output............................................................................................................................................  

Field-weighted citation impact...................................................................................................................................  

Highly-cited publications ............................................................................................................................................  

Interdisciplinary research ...........................................................................................................................................  

Collaboration................................................................................................................................................................  

2 

FP7 output ................................................................................................................................................................  

Field-weighted citation impact...................................................................................................................................  

FP7 top cited publications..........................................................................................................................................  

FP7 interdisciplinary output........................................................................................................................................  

FP7 collaboration ........................................................................................................................................................  

3.  FP7 output per programme .....................................................................................................................................  

Programme FWCI........................................................................................................................................................  

Top cited publications per programme ....................................................................................................................  

4.  H2020 output ..............................................................................................................................................................  

Field-weighted citation impact...................................................................................................................................  

H2020 top cited publications  .....................................................................................................................................  

H2020 interdisciplinary output ...................................................................................................................................  

H2020 collaboration....................................................................................................................................................  

5.  FP7- and H2020-funded collaboration between EU 28 geographical group and other countries  

Appendix A ..........................................................................................................................................................................  

Methodology and Data Sources ................................................................................................................................  

Methodology and Rationale ..................................................................................................................................  

Counting...................................................................................................................................................................  

Collaboration...........................................................................................................................................................  

Data Sources ..........................................................................................................................................................  

Appendix B..........................................................................................................................................................................  

Glossary of terms  

..  3 

..  3 

..  4 

..  4 

..  6 

..  7 

..  8 

11 

17 

19 

21 

23 

27 

33 

35 

35 

36 

38 

39 

38 

42 

46 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

53 

54 

54 

 
 
 
Introduction 
The general objective of the framework programmes are to contribute to building a society and an economy based on 
knowledge and innovation across the Union by leveraging additional research, development and innovation funding 
and by contributing to attaining research and development targets. 

The outcome of this project is an analysis of the FP7 and Horizon 2020 cooperation networks, and in particular the 
extent to which both have, or are currently, supporting interdisciplinarity and cross -sectoral approaches for research 
and innovation. 

This analysis is presented in two parts. The first, this executive summary, provides high-level analysis and data on the 
FP7 and H2020 framework programmes (and non-framework output for context),  per geographical group, and per 
comparator country including the United States, China, South Korea a nd Japan. Specifically for FP7, an overview of 
the component programmes is provided. 

The second part is in the form of excel data files which cover each sector, Academic, Medical, Corporate and 
Government, and each journal classification subject area (All Science Journal Classification). 

Scope of analysis for executive summary 
The breakdown of objects to be analysed cover each geographical grouping of countries, namely: 

1.  EU-28 
2.  EU-13 
3.  EU-15 
4.  Associated Countries (AC) 
5.  Third countries (TC) 

Additionally, specific countries including the United States (USA), Japan (JPN), China (CHN) and South Korea (KOR) 
are also examined. 

Each sector, namely, Academic, Government, Medical and Corporate. Analyses covered in this executive  summary 
focus on overall output whilst the data file output examines each sector individually. 

Please note, as agreed with ECDG, due to the relative paucity of data for H2020, ECDG requested a more in -depth 

analysis of the individual programmes within FP7.

Output, impact, growth, excellence and Interdisciplinarity 

The non-framework output of each of the geographical groupings are examined in detail first to provide essential 

context for the framework-funded publication output. Following the non-framework output section, the FP7 and H2020 

output are examined in the same level of detail, and comparisons are drawn to non -framework output. It should be 

noted that publication counts for more recent years, namely 2015 and 2016 display a slight decline. This is d ue to 

individual journals having a slight indexing delay in the most recent years. 

1  Non-framework output 

Scholarly outputs, as measured by the publication of journal articles, reviews, and conference proceedings papers, are 

a traditional indicator of research intensity. The term 'publication' used in this executive summary refers to the 

documents that fall under the journal article, reviews and conference proceedings categories. The apparent decline in 

all group outputs in 2015 and 2016 is an artefact of the  lengthy journal indexing process and all bibliometric databases, 

including Scopus, suffer from this lag in indexing. 

Total output for each of the geographical groups was characterised by low growth and decline rates. The EU28 total 

output in 2007 was 592,339 publications, and 554,502 in 2016. In terms of Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), 

this equates to a -0.7% year on year decline. Growth values for all groups and countries varied by fairly large margins: 

EU 15 (-0.8%), EU 13 (0.7%), AC (1.4%), TC (1.0%), CHN (4.8%), KOR (2.2%), USA (-2.0%) and JPN (-3.8%). Much 

of the growth declines were directly due to CHN's large output volume and growth rate. 

World output for the same period slowly declined at -0.4%, from 1,840,506 publications in 2007 to 1,778,309 

publications in 2016. 

Table 1.1 provides per year and selected period data for the publication output for each of the geographical groups, 

countries and world as a whole. 

2007 
592,339 

2008 
615,523 

2009 
647,579 

2010 
669,370 

2011 
704,319 

2012 
734,500 

2013 
755,800 

536,044 

552,122 

581,053 

597,677 

627,525 

654,327 

672,285 

2014 

2015 
744,278 

2016 
554,502 

659,564 

496,745 

71,262 

78,885 

83,167 

88,702 

94,834 

99,658 

104,228 

108,998 

107,233 

75,809 

94,299 
1,184,138 

98,193 
1,251,132 

106,898 
1,343,197 

113,341 
1,440,046 

121,158 
1,566,221 

128,479 
1,621,772 

134,102 
1,695,995 

138,264 

137,948 
1,683,573 

106,754 
1,296,297 

230,914 

268,076 

312,534 

347,877 

397,069 

413,724 

453,398 

48,001 

50,756 

52,875 

59,150 

64,349 

68,561 

71,864 

122,089 

120,019 

122,088 

123,275 

126,177 

126,282 

126,419 

442,253 

352,778 

76,091 

113,152 

58,616 

86,371 

76,006 
122,697 

490,333 

487,177 

496,155 

513,763 

535,096 

546,072 

554,823 

561,444 

541,474 

409,909 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 
TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

WLD 

1,840,506 

1,911,102 

2,012,227 

2,121,996 

2,268,762 

2,342,159 

2,431,700 

2,514,006 

2,383,967 

1,778,309 

Tab le 1.1 - Total pub lication output per geographical entity, per year 2007 -2016. Where present, row values have b een 

highlighted to show the maximum and minimum values. Source: Scopus.

 
 
 
Figures 1.1a 

and 1.1b 

provide 

graphical 

representation

s of the non-

framework 

output per 

geographical 

entity. 

2,000,000 

1,500,000 

1,000,000 

500,000 

Figure 1.1a - 
Total 
pub lication 
output per 
geographical 
group, per 
year 2007-
2016. 
Source: 
Scopus. 

600,000 

500.000 

O 

400.000 

Zi 

0 

1 

300.000 

200.000 

100,000 

Comparator  - output  - All Total  output, 2007-2016 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Comparator  - output  - All Total  output, 2007-2016 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015

2016 

CHN 

KOR ' JPN 

USA 

0 

 
 
 
 
Figure 1.1b  - Total pub lication output per country, per year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 
Comparator  - share of w orld output  - All Total  output,  2007-2016 
Figures 1.2a and 1.2b provide overviews of the share of the world total output for each of the geographical dimensions 

and countries. At the geographical group level Shares have remained steady, verging on a slight decline, for all of the 

geographical dimensions, except TC. The Third Countries have shown a large increase between 2007 and 2016, with 

a 8.6 percentage point (p.p.) increase, whereas the EU 28 and EU 15 groups have shown p.p. drops of just over 1.0 

for the same period. At the country level, CHN has increased its world share by 7.3 p.p. from 12.55% in 2013 to 

19.84% in 2016. The USA has seen a large drop, 3.6 p.p. from 26.64% in 2013 to 23.05% in 2016.

 
80% 

70% 

Ķ 60% 
3 

50% 

I 40% 

30% 

cu 
та 20% 
t/i 

10% 

0% 

Figure 

1.2a - 

World 

share of 

total 

pub licatio

n output 

per 

geographi

cal group, 

per year 

2007-

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Comparator  - share of w orld output  - All Total  output,  2007-2016 

2007 

2008 
2016 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015

2016. Source: Scopus. 

Ω- 

20% 

15% 

10% 

та 

5% 

0% 

30% g 25% 

Figure 1.2a - World share of total pub lication output per country, per year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

 
 
 
Field-weighted citation impact 

Comparator  - share of w orld output  - All Total  output,  2007-2016 

in this executive summary, we use field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) as the main indicator of citation impact. This 

metric compares the actual number of citations received with the average number of citations for a publication of the 

same subject, document type, and publication year. It therefore accounts for differences in citation practices between 

subjects, and is benchmarked against the world average, s et at 1.00. For instance, an FWCI of 1.24 means that a 

publication in this subject is cited 24% more often than expected compared to the world, while a value of 0.90 would 

mean the publication is cited 10% less than the global average. 

The field-weight citation impact (FWCI) of the total output of each of the geographical groups is presented in this 

section. Figures 1.3a and 1.3b provide per year overviews of the changes in FWCI for each of the geographical 

groups and countries. In reference to Figure 1.3a, FWCI for all but the EU13

 
group were above the World average of 1.0 for most of the 2007 -2016 period. The EU15 output FWCI was the 

highest for all years of the period. 

For the EU 28, FWCI for the period was 23% higher than world average, 29% higher than world average for EU15, 

and 18% below world average for EU13. 

Comparator  - non-framew ork - All Total  FWCI,  per year 2007-2016 

1.4 
1.3 __________________________________   ~ 1.2 

1.1 

1.0 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure 1.3a -Field-weighted citation impact per geographical group, per year 2007 -2016. Source: Scopus. 

For each of the country comparators, China showed a remarkable increase from 2007 to 2016, but its FWCI remained 

below world average. Japan was just below world average for the period, and South Korea was just above world 

average. The United States has seen a slow decline from 1.48 in 2007 to 1.41 in 2016. 

Comparator  - non-framew ork - All Total  FWCI,  per year 2007-2016 

1.6 
1.4 
1.2 

u 
ã 

ш 1.0 

0.8 
0.6 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015

2016 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA  -------------- World Av erage: 1.0 

Figure 1.3a -Field-weighted citation impact per geographical group, per year 2007 -2016. Source: Scopus. 

Highly-cited publications 

Highly cited publications are those that fall into the top 1, 5 and 10% of all cited publications worldwide. To account for 

variations in citation behaviour across subject areas (Medicine -oriented publications typically cite, and are cited, more 

often than those from, for example, Mathematics), publications are 

 
 
ranked based on their field-weighted citation impact, and the top 1, 5 and 10% of the publications in this ranking are 

used. Presented in this section are the counts of publications that fall into the highly-cited categories for all subject 

areas. Per subject area breakdowns are available in the accompanying data files. 

Shown in Figure 1.2 is the 2007 to 2016 period shares of each geographical group's total output that are in the world's 

a) top 1% of cited publications, b) top 5% of cited publications, and c) top 10% of cited publications. For each top x% 

share value, if the percentage shown is higher than the respective category, it can be inferred that the entity's 

contribution to top x% share is higher than the world average. For example, the EU28 group has 12.7% of its 

publications in the world top 10% of publications. This is higher than the world average which is, by definition, 10%. 

This reasoning can be applied to the top 1 and top 5% according ly. 

Comparator  - no_framew ork  - All Total  share in w orld top percentiles,  2007-2016 

E28 

E15 

AC 

E13 

■
σ 

CU 

’ū 

Q. 
O 

í/l 
C 
O 

18% 

16% 

14% 

12% 

10% 

8% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
• 

• 

• 

• Top 1% · Top 5% · Top 10% 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

Figure 1.4 - Share of total pub lication output in world top cited pub lications categories - a) top 1%, b ) top 5%, and c) 

top 10%, per geographical group and country, 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

Both the EU 28 and EU 15 groups are over-represented in all the top cited categories. The EU 13 group's 

representation is below world average expectations, with 0.8% of its publication in the world top 1%, 3.8% in the top 

5%, and 8.0% in the top 10%. The USA is the highest performing country - and of all comparator types - with 1.7% of 

its publications in the top 1%, 8.0% in the top 5%, and 15.5% in the top 10% cited categories. 

Interdisciplinary research 

Interdisciplinary research (IDR) is often believed to have great potential to contribute to research breakthro ughs, 

address societal problems, and foster innovation. Conceptually we use IDR as a broad term that is inclusive of 

multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. In this executive summary and associated analyses, 

a citation-based approach is employed to identify and measure IDR. The basic principle behind this approach is that 

an article is likely to be interdisciplinary if it cites papers that are "far away" from each other in terms of the similarit y of 

the journals they appear in (based on how often those journals are cited together in a certain period). On the other 

hand, if it cites papers in journals that are cited together very  frequently, it is likely to be a monodisciplinary article. By 

thus focusing on the outcomes of research (i.e. journal publications and citations), this approach does not take into 

consideration the underlying processes of knowledge integration in cross-

 
 
disciplinary research (e.g., research teams whose members have a variety  of disciplinary backgrounds). The 

advantage of measuring IDR by looking at citation patterns is the lack of reliance on any pre -defined subject 

classification, making it flexible enough to capture the dynamics of a research landscape in which subjects are 

constantly emerging and changing. We do however recognise the limitations of this approach (e.g., dealing with non -

article document types or subject areas with references that are not covered in the Scopus database). 

Figures 1.5a and 1.5 b provide overviews of the per year non -framework interdisciplinary output per geographical 

group and country. IDR output across all geographic groups has risen. The TC group has consistently produced the 

highest volume output per year,  and the highest growth at 2.6% CAGR.  Both AC and EU 13 showed positive growth, 

1.5 and 2.5% respectively, but more modest volumes than any other groups. 

Comparator  - non-framew ork - All Total  interdisciplinary  output,  2007-2016 

180,000 

160,000 

140.000 

120.0 

100,000 

80,000 

60,000 

40,000 

20,000 

0 

cu 
.Ω 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure 1.5a -Interdisciplinary pub lication output per geographical group, per year 2007 -2016. Source: Scopus. 

At  the country level China has shown significant year on year growth, 6.7%, with 19,236 IDR publications in 2007 and 

34,486 IDR publications in 2016. The United States output grew steadily between 2007 and 2015, but it's overall 

period CAGR was slightly negative at  -1.5%. 

Comparator  - non-framew ork - All Total  interdisciplinary  output,  2007-2016 

60,000 

50.000 

40.000 

30.000 

20.000 

10,000

2007  
0 

2008  

2009  

2010  

2011  

2012  

2013  

2014  

2015  

2016 

 
 
Figure 1.5b  -Interdisciplinary pub lication output per country, per year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

The FWCI of IDR non-framework output for each of the geographical groups is shown in Figures 1.6a and 1.6b. For 

all groups except AC and TC, FWCI is increasing. EU 15 IDR FWCI,  rises at a modest 1.4% CAGR between 2007 

and 2016, compared to the EU 13 CAGR growth of 4.9% . TC IDR FWCI slipped below world average in 2011 and 

continues to decline at an overall CAGR of  -0.5%.

Comparator  - non-framew ork - All Total  interdisciplinary  FWCI,  2007-2016 

1.4 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure 1.6a - Interdisciplinary publication FWCI per geographical group, per year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

»TC  -------------- World av erage: 1.0 

The United States has the highest IDR FWCI of all comparator countries. Apart from the US, only South Korea has a 

higher than world average FWCI,  but this is only for a short period between 2011 and 2012. IDR research is generally 

thought to produce higher FWCI output, but only the US appears to have achieved this across the whole period. For 

comparison, the EU 28 , EU 15 and EU 13 groups only achieve this from 2012 onwards. China has the lowest ratio of 

IDR FWCI to overall FWCI, with its IDR research having an FWCI 15% less that its overall output FWCI. 

Comparator  - non-framew ork - All Total  interdisciplinary  FWCI,  2007-2016 

1.7 

1.5 1.3 

u 
g 

1.1 

0.9 

0.7 

0.5

Figure 1.6b  - Interdisciplinary publication FWCI per geographical group, per year 2007 -2016. Source: Scopus.

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

World av erage: 1.0 

2007  

2008  

2009  

2010  

2011  

2012  

2013  

2014  

2015  

2016 

 
 
 
  
 
Collaboration 

Research is becoming more and more international. Researchers collaborate every day with others at universities 

around the world - discussing joint research, organizing conferences, sharing seminar papers. International 

collaboration provides researchers with the opportunity to work with the best collabor ator in a specialized field and 

gain access to expanded resources, data, and facilities. Single - authored articles are becoming less and less 

common. 

This report measures research collaboration through analysing patterns in co -authored publications. In general, 

collaboration is defined as the set of publications with at least two co -authors (as opposed to single-authored 

publications). The collaboration types include international, national, institutional and single -author. 

International collaboration occurs if an article has at least two different countries listed in the authorship byline. If an 

article has only one author affiliated with institutions in two different countries though, this article is not counted as an  

internationally-collaborated article but as a single-authored article. Due to the nature of the comparator geographic 

groups, international collaboration is defined as those publications in which at least one co -author comes from 

outside the geographical group. Using the EU28 group as an examp le, if a publication has one author from the 

Netherlands and another from Germany, it would be classed as a national publication. If the publication had a third 

author from China, it would be classed as an international collaboration. Thus because of the n ature of the 

geographical groups, international collaboration counts may appear to be under-represented. 

Presented in the following figures are a) the collaboration type share of total publication numbers, and b) the FWCI 

for the same collaboration type per geographical group and comparator countries. 

Overall patterns describe a declining share of single-authored publications across all geographical groups and 

comparator countries, although there is a large spread of shares between the comparator entities. FWCI for this 

collaboration type have remained steady, below the world average, with slight fluctuations for each comparator entity 

across the 2007 to 2016 period. 

Institutional collaborations have likewise declined, but shares remain similar for all compa rator entities. FWCI for 

institutional collaborations have remained steady, with increases see for the EU 13 geographical group and China. 

National collaboration shares are steady with only the TC group showing an marked increase between 2007 and 

2016. At  the comparator country level, shares have remained steady for the period. FWCI values have fluctuated for 

all comparator entities, with EU 13 and China FWCI values increasing but Japan, South Korea and the US all 

showing declines. 

International collaboration shares have markedly increased for all entities. Similarly, FWCI has moved upwards, albeit 

not as markedly as share. International collaboration is the only collaboration type wherein all FWCI values for all 

entities is above the world average.

Sector single-author  publication  share of all  publications:  no_framew ork Total  All 
18% 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

■TC 

Sector single-author  publication  share of all  publications:  no_framew ork Total  All 

0% 

18% 

0% 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

•CHN - 

■KOR ■ 

■JPN · 

■USA 

Figure 1.7a - Single-author pub lication share of all pub lications, per geographical dimension and country, p e r 

year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

Sector single-author  publication  FWCI:  no_framew ork Total  All 

1.2 

1.0 

2007  

2008  

2009  

2010  

2011  

2012  

2013  

2014  

2015  

2016 

 
 
Sector single-author  publication  FWCI:  no_framew ork Total  All 

Ό 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0

 
 
1.2 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

Ό 

0.2 

0.0 

Sector single-author  publication  share of all  publications:  no_framew ork Total  All 
18% 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

— USA  ------------------ WLD av erage: 1.0 

Figure  1.7b   -  Single-author  pub lication  FWCI,  per  geographical  dimension  and country, per year  20072016. 

Source: Scopus. 

Sector institutional  publication  share of all  publications:  no_framew ork Total  All 

45% 

40% 


 

35% 

30% Ί. 

25% 

20% 

15% 

aj 

10% 

5% 

0% 

60% 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Sector institutional  publication  share of all  publications:  no_framew ork Total  All 
2007 

2010 

2013 

2009 

2014 

2011 2012 

2008 

^^CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

2015 

2016 

10% 

0% 

Figure 1.8a - Institutional pub lication share of all pub lications, per geographical dimension and country, per year 

2007-2016. Source: Scopus.

2007  

2008  

2009  

2010  

2011  

2012  

2013  

2014  

2015  

2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ό 

Ό 

1.4 

1.2 

1.0 
1.6 

1.4 
0.8 

1.2 
0.6 

1.0 
0.4 

0.2 
0.8 
0.0 
0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Sector institutional  publication  FWCI:  no_framew ork Total  All 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Sector institutional  publication  FWCI:  no_framew ork Total  All 
1.6 

CHN 

■ KOR 

■JPN 

■ USA 

■--------WLD av erage: 1.0 

Figure 1.8b  - Institutional pub lication FWCI, per geographical dimension and country, per year 20072016. Source: 

Scopus. 

S
e
c
t
o
r

n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l publication  share of all  publications:  no_framew ork Total  All 

50% 

40% 

ro o 

30% 

3 Ω- 

20% o ω 
10% 

en 

0%

2007  

2008  

2009  

2010  

2011  

2012  

2013  

2014  

2015  

2016 

 
 
 
50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

u 
3 

Ω- 

0 
cu 

1  10% 
uo 

0% 

Sector national  publication  share of all  publications:  no_framew ork Total  All 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

Figure 1.9a - National pub lication share of all pub lications, per geographical dimension and country, per ye a r 2 0 0 7 -

2016. Source: Scopus. 

Sector national  publication  FWCI:  no_framew ork Total 

ã 

1.4 

1.2 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

1.8 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 2011 

2012 

2013 2014 

2015 

2016 

— E28  — — E15 

E13 

-AC 

— TC - 

--------WLD av erage: 1.0 

Sector national  publication  FWCI:  no_framew ork Total

Figure 1.9b  - National pub lication FWCI, per geographical dimension and country, per year 2007 -2016. Source: 

Scopus. 

2007  

2008  

2009  

2010  

2011  

2012  

2013  

2014  

2015  

2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sector international  publication  share of all  publications:  no_framew ork Total  All 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Sector international  publication  share of all  publications:  no_framew ork Total  All 

50% 

0% 

50% 

40% 

ГО 

30% 

D Q. 

20% o 

O) 

10% 

0% 

2
007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure 1.10a - International pub lication share of all pub lications, per geographical dimension and country, per year 

2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

Sector international  publication  FWCI:  no_framew ork Total 

2.5 

2.0 

_ 1.5 
u 
g 

— 

 _______  

1.0 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------— 

0.5 

0.0

2007  

2008  

2009  

2010  

2011  

2012  

2013  

2014  

2015  

2016 

 
 
Sector international  publication  FWCI:  no_framew ork Total 
2.5 
2.0 

1.5 

u 
g 

1.0 0.5 

0.0 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA --------------- WLD av erage: 1.0 

Figure 1.10b  - International pub lication FWCI, per geographical dimension and country, per year 20072016. Source: 

Scopus. 

0  FP7 output 

FP7-funded publication output increased dramatically as the program progressed, as shown in Table 2.1 and Figure 

2.1. The EU 28 group produced 576 publications in 2007 and peak output was in 2013 with 28,438 publications. 

Overall growth between 2013 and 2016 was 26.4% CAGR. Growth between 2007 and  2013 was extremely high at 

138.3% CAGR. 

Of the EU 28 publications, the overwhelming majority came from the EU15, with EU13 countries accounting for 

approximately 10% of the publications in 2013. There was a large initial count of TC countries producing FP 7-funded 

publications, with 205 publications in 2007 and 15,576 publications in 2013, just over half of the  EU 28 publication 

output in the same period. Of the four comparator countries, the US has published the most FP7 -funded publications 

by a factor of six. 

 
 
Sector international  publication  FWCI:  no_framew ork Total 
2.6 

2007 
2016 

CAGR,0 

7-16 

FP7 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

2007 
576 

573 

76 

39 

133 

10 

4 

10 

89 

2008 
2,435 

2,371 

217 

297 

628 

53 

5 

45 

2009 
6,301 

2010 
12,946 

2011 
18,559 

2012 
22,592 

2013 
28,438 

2014 
26,315 

2015 
19,345 

2016 
4,756 

142,263 

6,099 

12,463 

17,993 

21,836 

27,576 

25,487 

18,808 

4,640 

137,846 

644 

1,001 

2,021 

148 

36 

183 

1,364 

2,070 

4,101 

328 

100 

333 

1,845 

3,273 

6,183 

523 

142 

486 

2,273 

4,396 

2,810 

5,456 

2,554 

5,141 

8,218 

10,559 

10,206 

771 

231 

720 

1,221 

1,182 

346 

944 

330 

745 

1,675 

3,683 

7,302 

876 

210 

568 

405 

864 

13,863 

26,220 

1,786 

51,137 

222 

46 

127 

5,334 

1,450 

4,161 

434 

1,212 

2,443 

3,679 

4,739 

5,997 

5,785 

4,130 

1,007 

29,515 

26.4% 

26.2% 

20.4% 

41.1% 

33.5% 

41.1% 

31.2% 

32.6% 

30.9% 

Tab le 2.1 - Total pub lication output of FP7-funded research per geographical group, per year 2007-2016. Source: 

Scopus. 

 
 
 
30.0 

£ 25,000 

O 
20.000 

5 15,000 o 
10,000 

E 

Figure  2.1a  -  Total  pub lication  output  of  FP7-funded  research  per  geographical  group,  per  year  20072016. 

Source: Scopus. 

5,000 

0 

Comparator  - FP7  - All Total  output,  2007-2016 

Comparator  - FP7  - All Total  output,  2007-2016 

7,000 

6,000 

C 

5.000 

_o 

I 4,000 
Ω. 

3.000 

2.000 

1,000 

£ 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

0 

Figure 2.1b  - Total pub lication output of FP7-funded research per comparator country, per year 20072016. Source: 

Scopus. 

Figure 2.2a and 2.2b provide overviews of FP7-funded research shares of each comparator group and country's total 

output. The peak shares for all groups occurred in 2013, with EU 15 and AC groups having just over 4% of the total 

publication output founded by the FP7 programme. The TC group had the lowest shares per year, and whilst China 

and the US are members of the TC group, from the per country data, the shares of FP7 -funded research in those 

countries is very small compared to their respective total outputs.

 
 
 
 
4.5% 
Comparator  - framew ork share  of output  - All Total  output,  2007-2016 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

Figure 2.2a - FP7-funded pub lication share of all pub lication output per geographical group, p e r 

year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

Comparator  - framew ork share of output  - All Total  output,  2007-2016 

4.0% 

3.5% 

O 
% 3.0% 
u 

2.5% 

D 

o 

2.0% 

1.5% 

1.0% 

0.5% 

0.0% 1.2% 

1.0% 

C 
g 

0.8% 

_o 

0.6% 

O 
ш 

0.4% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

 
 
 
 
6.22 
Comparator  - FP7  - All Total  FWCI,  per year 2007-2016 

Figure 2.2b  - FP7-funded pub lication share of all pub lication output per comparator country, per year 2007 -2016. 

Source: Scopus. 

Field-weighted citation impact 

Output from FP7-funded research had particularly high FWCI values. Figure 2.3 provides an overview of the FWCI 

values per comparator group. For all groups, FWCI was at least twice as high as the world average, with the AC 

group output for the period 2007 to 2013 being the highest at 3.03. EU 28 and EU 15 FWCI for the same period was 

2.54 and 2.57 respectively and TC FWCI was higher at 2.96. The EU 13 group had the lowest period FWCI at 2.27, 

but even this value was just over two and quarter times higher than the world average.

 
 
5.0 

1.0 

0.0 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 

u 
Ş 
ш 10.0 5.0 0.0 

Figure 
2.3b  - 
FP7-
funded 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

— E28  — 

E15 

E13 

AC — ™TC  ---------------- World Av erage: 1.0 

4.5% 
Comparator  - framew ork share  of output  - All Total  output,  2007-2016 

Figure 2.3a - FP7-funded pub lication FWCI per geographical group, per year 2007 -2016. Source: Scopus. 

Comparator  - FP7  - All Total  FWCI,  per year 2007-2016 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015

2016 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA  ---------------World Av erage: 1.0 

pub lication FWCI per comparator country, per year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

At  the comparator country level, FWCI values are similarly high. All countries have FWCI values higher than 3.70 for 

the 2007-2016 period, with South Korea having the highest period FWCI at 5.45. 

To provide more context for the FWCI of FP7-funded research versus overall FWCI, Figure 2.4a and 2.4b provide 

ratios of FP7-funded output FWCI to the overall FWCI of each comparator entity. For all groups, the ratio is well above 

1.8 signifying that FP7-funded output was at least 80% higher than the overall FWCI. The EU 13 and TC groups 

enjoyed the highest relative increases over their own overall  FWCI, with 2.78 and 3.08 ratio increases, respectively, 

over the 2007 to 2016 period. 

The other comparators also enjoyed large ratio values in the 2007 to 2016 period, with the EU 28 and EU 15 groups 

having 2.11 and 2.03 ratios, and the AC group having a 2.58 ratio increase. 

At  the comparator country level, this effect is more pronounced. Over the 2007 to 2016 period, Chinese FP7 -funded 

FWCI was 4.87 times as high as their overall output FWCI. The highest increase belonged to South Kore a wherein a 

5.25 fold increase was observed. There was a positive fold increase for the US but was more in line with the 

geographical groups at 2.52 for the period.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 
1.0 0.0 

Figure  2.4a 

2007-2016. 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

Ratio: 1.0 

- Ratio of FP7-funded pub lication FWCI to overall FWCI per geographical group, per year Source: 

Comparator  - ratio of framew ork to non-framew ork - All Total  FWCI,  per year 2007-2016 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015

2007 

cc 

2008 
2016 

10.0 

5.0 

0.0 

Scopus. 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 

o 

т
а

Figure 2.4b  - Ratio of FP7-funded pub lication FWCI to overall FWCI per comparator country, per year 2007 -2016. 

Source: Scopus. 

FP7 top cited publications 

FP7-funded research provided high shares of publications in the world's top 1, 5 and  10% of most cited publications. 

This is true for all comparator groups, across the 2007 to 2016 period. Figure 2.5 provides an overview of the share of 

FP7-funded publications that are found in the world's top cited publication categories. In Figure 2.6, for each top cited 

category, additional data are provided in ratio form demonstrating how much higher or lower FP7 -funded research 

occurs in the top cited category compared to overall output. 

As an example, in 2007, 1.12% of all EU 28 output was in the world's top 1% of cited research. For the same year, 

3.79% of FP7-funded research from the EU 28 group was in the world's top 1% of cited research. Using the all output 

share as denominator, the ratio equates to 2.8, or in simpler terms, FP7 - funded research was almost three times 

more likely to belong to the world's top 1% cited research.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Of the world's top 1% of cited research, FP7-funded output for all comparator groups are proportionally much higher 
Comparator  - ratio of framew ork to non-framew ork - All Total  FWCI,  per year 2007-2016 
than the groups' overall output in the world's top 1% of cited research. For the 2007 to 2013 period, the  EU 28 group 

FP7-funded output was 3.31 times more represented in the top 1% category than the g roup's overall output. For EU 15 

and EU 13, FP7-funded output was proportionally higher in the top 1% category by factors of 3.17 and 4.39 

respectively. 

At  the country level, China enjoyed the highest ratio of shares, with FP7 -funded publications found in the top 1% 

category 12.5 times more than its own overall output, 6.12 times more for the top 5% category and 4.56 times more in 

the top 10% category. Japan and South Korea had similar high values, and the US was on par with the geographical 

groups' values. 

This pattern was  observable across all top cited categories indicating that, overall, FP7 -funded research was much 

more likely to be in the world's top cited research no matter the geographical group from where the research came 

from. 

Comparator  - FP7  - All Total  share in w orld top percentiles,  2007-2016 

• 

• 

45% 
40% 
• 
J 35% 

30% 

25% 
• 
20% 

15% 

E28 

• 

• 

• 
TC 

10% 
• 
5% 
AC 

E13 
0% 
• Top 1% · Top 5% · Top 10% 

• 

• 

• 

ι/i C 

E15 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

Figure 2.5 - Shares of FP7-funded research in world top cited research categories, per geographical group and 

country, 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

Comparator  - ratio of framew ork shares to non-framew ork shares in w orld top percentiles, 
2007-2016 
14.0 

12.0 
10.0 

8.0 

6.0 
4.0 

2.0 
0.0 

A 

1 

E28 

m 

1 

E15 

1 

E13 

1 

AC 

• Top 1% · Top 5% · Top 10% 

• 

• 
• 

• 

t 

• 

• 
• 

• 

• 
• 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

• 
m 

9 

USA 

Figure 2.6 - Ratio of FP7-funded research versus overall output in world top cited research categories, per 

geographical group and country, 2007-2016. Source: Scopus.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Comparator  - FP7  - All Total  interdisciplinary  output  share of total,  2007-2016 

FP7 interdisciplinary output 

Proportionally, FP7-funded interdisciplinary research does not occupy as large a share as it does in the world top cited 

research categories. This is initially counter-intuitive as interdisciplinary research typically has higher FWCI values than 

monodisciplinary research. However, when considering the programme level details of FP7, each programme - for 

example BIOTECH, ENV, Energy, Health, ICT - is highly focussed to the point where interdisciplinary research is rare. 

That being said, presented below in Table 2.2 are the number of interdisciplinary publications per entity. Figures 2.7a 

and b, and Figures 2.8a and b provide the relative shares of FP7-funded research that are interdisciplinary and the 

relative ratios to each comparator group's overall output. 

FP7 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

2007 
61 

61 

2008 
201 

201 

1 

5 

7 

- 

- 

- 

4 

13 

19 

40 

6 
- 

2 
24 

2009 
432 

419 

41 

74 

121 

13 

- 

7 

66 

2010 
949 

913 

80 

156 

260 

20 

2 
15 

2011 
1,462 

1,404 

2012 
1,650 

1,577 

2013 
2,009 

1,920 

2014 
1,776 

1,692 

2015 
1,416 

1,359 

149 

252 

407 

38 

1 
19 

170 

326 

520 

50 

10 

22 
310 

213 

384 

604 

76 

13 

23 

313 

183 

341 

584 

54 

13 

18 
338 

142 

242 

427 

51 

7 

15 

226 

142 

244 

2016 
305 

299 

24 

60 

112 

15 

4 

4 

60 

2007 
2016 

CAGR,0 
7-16 

10,261 

9,845 

1,016 

1,859 

3,082 

323 

50 

125 

1,727 

19.6% 

19.3% 

42.3% 

31.8% 

36.1% 

- 

- 

- 
35.1% 

Tab le 2.2 - Total interdisciplinary pub lication output of FP7-funded research per geographical group and compara to r 
Comparator  - FP7  - All Total  interdisciplinary  output  share of total,  2007-2016 

country, per year 2007-2016. Row maximums have b een highlighted. Source: Scopus. 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

E28 
2015 

2% 

0% 

2016 

_ 14% 
(Ό 
12% 

10% 
03 
« 8% 
> 

6% 

4% 
T3 

Figure 2.7a - Interdisciplinary share of FP7-funded output per geographical group, per year 2007-2016. Source: 

Scopus. 

 
 
 
 
 
10% 8% 

> 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

_c 

CHN 

•KOR 

■JPN 

■USA 

Figure 2.7b  - Interdisciplinary share of FP7-funded output per geographical group, per year 2007 -2016. Source: 

Scopus. 
_ 14% 
"ra 

12% 

For the period 2007 to 2016, EU 28 FP7-funded interdisciplinary output accounted for 7.2% of the group's total FP7 -

funded output. For the same period, EU 15 and EU 13 shares were 7.14% and 7.33% respectively. The TC group 

share was the lowest at 6.03%. As output counts increased , interd isciplinary shares stabilised at, or near, 7% of 

overall FP7-funded output for all comparator groups. 

At  the country level, China, South Korea and Japan published no IDR publications in 2007, and South Korea only 

published IDR articles from 2010 onwards. Overall shares varied greatly between the countries, with 2007 to 2016 

period shares between ranging from 3% (Japan) to just over 6% (China). 

Ratios to non-framework output interdisciplinary shares were below one for all comparator groups and countries from 

2009 onwards. The EU 13 group was the only comparator to show an increase in its relative ratio, from 0.14 in 2007 to 

0.54 in 2016. 

A similar pattern is found at the country level. South Korea is the only country to increase its relative ratio of shares, 

from 0.22 

in 2010 to 

0.87 in 

2016. All 

other 

countries 

showed 

noticeabl

e 

declines 

Comparator  - ratio of framew ork IDR  shares to non-framew ork IDR  shares- All Total,  20072016 

2007 

2008 
2016 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015

or remained steady. 

1.6 

1.4 

1.2 

ω 
j5 1.0 
V) 

0.8 

03 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

Ratio: 1.0 

 
 
 
 
Figure 2.8a - Ratio of interdisciplinary FP7-funded output share to overall interdisciplinary output shares, per 

Comparator  - FP7  - All Total  interdisciplinary  output  share of total,  2007-2016 

geographical 

year 2007-

Source: 

Scopus. 

1.4 

1.2 S 

1.0 

ш 

0.8 I 0.6 

0.4 

Comparator  - ratio of framew ork IDR  shares to non-framew ork IDR  shares- All Total,  2007-
2016 

group, per 

2016. 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

Ratio: 1.0 

Figure 2.8b  - Ratio of interdisciplinary FP7-funded output share to overall interdisciplinary output shares, per 

comparator country, per year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

0.2 

0.0 

Interdisciplinary research typically attains a higher FWCI than other research. Figures 2.9a and 2.9b provide 

Comparator  - FP7  - All Total  interdisciplinary  FWCI,  2007-2016 

overview

s of the 

FWCI of 

FP7-

funded 

interdisci

plinary 

output 

for each 

of the comparator groups and countries. 

6.0 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

 
 
 
1.0 

 0.0 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure 2.9a - Interdisciplinary FWCI of FP7-funded output per geographical group, per year 2007-2016. Source: 

Scopus.

 
 
Comparator  - FP7  - All Total  interdisciplinary  FWCI,  2007-2016 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

25.0 

ã 20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

World av erage: 1.0 

Figure 2.9b  - Interdisciplinary FWCI of FP7-funded output per comparator country, per year 2007-2016. Source: 

Scopus. 

5.0 

0.0 

All comparator groups attain higher than world average FWCI for all years. FWCI remained steady during the 2010 to 

2014 period, but peaks were seen in 2009 for all groups. To compare the FWCI of interdisciplinary output to that of 

the overall FP-funded output, Figures 2.10a and 2.10b provide ratio depictions for each comparator group and 

country. 

For all geographical groups, the ratio of interdisciplinary FP7-funded output FWCI to overall IDR FWCI is higher than 

1.0, levelling off between 1.8 and 3.5 between 2010 and 2014. Whilst FP7 -funded interdisciplinary research shares 

are low (See Table 2.3), the associated FWCI is higher than the overall IDR output FWCI. 

 
 
 
Comparator  - FP7  to non-framew ork ratio- All Total  interdisciplinary  FWCI,  2007-2016 

Comparator  - FP7  to non-framew ork ratio- All Total  interdisciplinary  FWCI,  2007-2016 

6.0 

5.0 
4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

 1.0 0.0 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure 2.10a - Ratio of FP7-funded interdisciplinary FWCI to overall interdisciplinary output FWCI per geographical 

group, per year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

 
 
 
 
Comparator  - FP7  to non-framew ork ratio- All Total  interdisciplinary  FWCI,  2007-2016 

45.0 

CHN 
Figure  2.10b   -  Ratio  of  FP7-funded  interdisciplinary  FWCI  to  overall  interdisciplinary  output 

KOR 

USA 

JPN 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

0

.

0 

FWCI per comparator country, per year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

FP7 collaboration 

Presented in Figures 2.11 to 2.14 are the publication count shares for each of the collaboration types of FP7 -funded 

research for each of the geographical groups. Please note, axis values have been modified to increase readability. 

It is immediately noticeable that FP7-funded output has very low counts and associated shares of single - authored 

publications. The primary aim of the programme is to stimulate collaboration, thus by its very  nature, single-author 

publication output are rare. Of more interest is the national collaboration type shares as this encompasses the within 

geographical group collaborations. National collaboration shares for the EU 28 and EU 15 groups are high, with 

national collaboration publications making up 36.8% and 33.8% of total output, respectively, for the 2007 to 2016 

period. For the AC and TC groups, national collaboration shares, wherein none of the authors are from EU countries, 

the shares were expectedly low, 7.6% and 3.5% respectively. 

International collaboration, that between geographical groups, was very high for all FP7 -funded output. 

It is worth reiterating at this point that international collaboration in this context is defined as collaboration between a 

geographical group member and a country outside that geographical group. For the EU 28 and EU 15 groups it 

reaches 37.9% and 41.4%, respectively, for the 2007 to 2016 period, and for AC and TC groups was more than 

double, at 77.4% and 73.3% respectively. From these data, and the context of how international collaboration is 

defined, it becomes more apparent that collaboration in FP7-funded research is primarily between EU members but a 

large share of the output is with multinational, non-EU coauthors.

 
 
 
 
Sector single-author  publication  share of all  publications:  FP7  Total  All 
5% 

Figure 2.11a - Single-authored FP7-funded shares of all FP7-funded output per geographical group, per year 

2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

5% 

Sector single-author  publication  share of all  publications:  FP7  Total  All 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

KOR  ^^^JPN 

^^USA 

Figure 2.11b  - Single-authored FP7-funded shares of all FP7-funded output per comparator country, per year 2 0 0 7 -

2016. Source: Scopus. 

30% 

Sector institutional  publication  share of all  publications:  FP7  Total  All 

Figure  2.12a  - Institutional FP7-funded  shares  of all FP7-funded  output  per  geographical  group,  per  year 
2007-2016.  Source:  Scopus. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sector institutional  publication  share of all  publications:  FP7  Total  All 
30% 
£ 25% o 
20% 
-Ω 

15% 
03 

10% 
ω 
(Ό 
5% 

0% 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

KOR 

JPN  ^_USA 

Figure 2.12b  - Institutional FP7-funded shares of all FP7-funded output per comparator country, per year 2007-2 0 1 6 . 

Source: Scopus. 

Sector national  publication  share of all  publications:  FP7  Total  All 

60% 

50

% o 

J 40% 

J- 30% 
"ra 

20% 

0) 

10% 

0% 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015

2016 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

Figure 2.13a - National FP7-funded shares of all FP7-funded output per geographical grou p , 

per year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

Sector national  publication  share of all  publications:  FP7  Total  All 

o 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

"ra 
<
υ 
т
а
J
Z 
t/l 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure  2.13b - National  FP7-funded  shares  of all FP7-funded  output  per  comparator  country,  per  year 
2007-2016.  Source:  Scopus. 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
100% 
Sector international  publication  share of all  publications:  FP7  Total  All 

80% 

60% 

40% 

n: 
_o 
3 

Q. 

o 
ω 

JŞ 20% 

IS) 

0% 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure 2.14a - International FP7-funded shares of all FP7-funded output per geographical group, per year 2 0 0 7 -

2016. Source: Scopus. 

Sector international  publication  share of all  publications:  FP7  Total  All 

100% 

80% 

ш u 

60% 

3 Ω- 

40% 
 cu 
20% 

0 
1 
uo 

0% 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

Figure 2.14b  - International FP7-funded shares of all FP7-funded output per comparator country, per year 2007-2016. 

Source: Scopus. 

Figures 12.5 to 12.8 provide overviews of the publication FWCI per collaboration type for FP7 -funded output. 

Interestingly, and in opposition to the FWCI values for non-framework output, even though there were few single-

authored publications, the associated FWCI is generally above the world average. National collaboration output FWCI 

was, for most of comparator entities, higher than the world average. Th e international collaboration output FWCI, 

which is typically considered to have the highest impact, is very high. Compared to the overall FWCI for FP7 -funded 

research, the internationally collaborated FWCI output was in many cases 0.5 points higher. This pattern extended to 

all comparator entities. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sector single-author  publication  FWCI:  FP7  Total  All 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure  2.15a  -  Single-author  FP7-funded  FWCI  of all FP7-funded output per geographical group, per year 

2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 
Sector single-author  publication  FWCI:  FP7  Total  All 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure 2.15b  - Single-author FP7-funded FWCI of all FP7-funded output per comparator country, per year 2007-2016. 

Source: Scopus. 

4.0 

Sector institutional  publication  FWCI:  FP7  Total  All 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

3.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0

.

5

0.0 

Figure  2.16a  - Institutional FP7-funded  FWCI of all FP7-funded  output  per  geographical  group,  per  year 
2007-2016.  Source:  Scopus. 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sector institutional  publication  FWCI:  FP7  Total  All 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure 2.16b  - Institutional FP7-funded FWCI of all FP7-funded output per comparator country, per year 2007-2016. 

Source: Scopus. 
Sector national  publication  FWCI:  FP7  Total 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure  2.17a  -  National  FP7-funded FWCI of all FP7-funded output per geographical group, per year 2007 -2016. 

Source: Scopus. 
Sector national  publication  FWCI:  FP7  Total 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure  2.17b - National  FP7-funded  FWCI of all FP7-funded  output  per  comparator  country,  per  year 
2007-2016.  Source:  Scopus. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sector international  publication  FWCI:  FP7  Total 

Ό 

6.0 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Figure 2.18a - International FP7-funded FWCI of all FP7-funded output per geographical group, per year 2007-2016. 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC -------------- WLD av erage: 1.0 

Source: Scopus. 

25.0 

2007 

2008 
2016 

0.0 

Sector international  publication  FWCI:  FP7  Total 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015

20.0 

15.0 
u 
Ş 

10.0 

5.0 

Figure 2.18b  - International FP7-funded FWCI of all FP7-funded output per comparator country, per year 2007-2016. 

Source: Scopus. 

3. FP7 output per programme 

In this section, output statistics for each of the nineteen programmes are broken down by year. The data is presented 

for all sectors, with individual sector data available in the accompanying data files. In this summary, only data for the 

EU 28 geographical group is presented. Other geographical groups can be found in the accompanying data files. 

Figures 3.1a and 3.1b present EU28 geographical group publication output counts for each of programmes. Figure 

3.1b is a modified version of 3.1a, without the four largest programmes.

 
 
 
 
 
 
12.000 
14,000 


 

10.000 

n: 
_o 

15 

O 
<L> 
-Q 

z 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

ICT 

ERC 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Biotech 

Energy  ^^^“ENV 

JRC 

SME 

KBBE 

MSCA 

SP1-JTI 

Space 

ERC 

NMP 

SSH 

Health 

SEC 

ICT 

INCO 

SEWP 

SiS 

E28  - FP7  per programme  - Total  publication  counts across all subject areas 
16,000 
2,000 

TPT 

0 

Figure 3.1a - Per programme output of FP7-funded research for the EU28 geographical group, per year 2007 -2016. 

Only largest programmes have b een labelled. Please see Figure 3.1b  for other programmes.Source: Scopus. 

ERC is the largest, by output, programme by a factor of just over three. Interestingly, ERC's peak output occurs in 

2014, as opposed to almost all the other programmes. ICT showed a large drop in output between 201 1 and 2012, 

which is not seen in any other programmes. The JRC programme output dropped to zero in 2014, and was the only 

E28  - FP7  per programme  - Total  publication  counts across all subject areas 

Biotech 

Energy  

ENV 

INCO 

JRC 

KBBE 

NMP 

SEC 

programme to do so. 

CU 

800 

600 

400 

200

SEWP 

SiS 

SME 

SP1-JTI 

Space 

SSH 

TPT 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

0 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.1b  - Per programme output of FP7-funded research for the EU28 geographical group, per year 2007-2016. 

ERC, ICT, MSCA and Health programmes removed for ease of viewing, please see Figure 3.1a for these data. 

Source: Scopus. 

Programme FWCI 

Generally speaking FWCI values for each of the were well above the world average. For the 2007 -2016 period, 

Energy had the highest FWCI , at 3.26, and the programme with the lowest FWCI for the same period was SEWP at 

1.86, or 86% better than the world average. 

Figure 3.2 provides FWCI values per year for each of the programmes. Figure 3.3 provides a comparison between 

two periods, 2007-2013, and 2007-2016 for each of the programmes. 

E28 - FP7 per programme - Total FWCI across all subject areas  

12.0 
10.0 

8.0 

Ό 

6.0 

4.0 2.0 0.0 

SP1-JTI 

Biotech 

Health 

2008 

KBBE 

SEWP 

ERC 

2009 
2016 

Space 

JRC 

W
o
r
l
d Av erage: 1.0 

SEC 

Energy  

ICT 

ENV 

INCO 

2010 

MSCA 

2011 

2012 

NMP 

2013 

2014 

2015

SiS 

SSH 

SME 

TPT 

Figure 3.2 - Per programme FWCI of FP7-funded research for the EU28 geographical group, per year 2007-
2016.Data for the year 2007 has b een removed to improve readability 1. Source: Scopus.

1 With smaller numbers of publications, FWCI values can be dramatically affected by outlier values. Counts of less 
than 100 publications per year indicate care should be taken when interpreting FWCI values. 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

2007-2013 

2007-2016 

• -------- World Av erage: 1.0 

Figure 3.3 - Per programme FWCI of FP7-funded research for the EU28 geographical group, per periods 2007 -

2.5 

2013 and 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

E28  - FP7  per programme  - Total  FWCI  across all subject areas, 2007-2013  vs 2007-2016 

Top cited publications per programme 

The share of publications found in the world top cited percentiles are shown in Figure 3.4. Output from all 

programmes over-perform, relative to their expected shares, to a very  large degree. ENV is one of the highest 

performing programmes in that over 35% of its total output is in the world's top 10% of cited publications. It is over 

three and a half times the world average, the world average being 10%. ENV has the highest share of publications in 

the world top 1% of cited publications - 5.4%. Similar comparisons can be made across all other programmes and top 

percentile groups. For comparison, all output shares in the world top cited categories are shown in Figure 3.4 as 

hollow dots on the far right of the figure. 

E28  - FP7  per programme  - Total  share of publications  in w orld top cited  publications  across  
all subject  areas, 2007-2016 

Ω- 

40% I 35% 30% 

¡e <r 

"1 cu 

 c . ____  _  

25% 
20% 
15% 

10% 

5% 
0% 

·; · * 
- · · 
• 

• 

• 
• 

]-
· 
Ф  * 4* 

• 
· T 
T ·  
· 

Λ 
b<? 

•  •  o 
•  •  o 
o 

; · · 
• · 
¿O 
* 4? 

Figure 3.4 - Per programme share of world 

> Top 1% · Top 5% · Top 10% 

top cited categories for the EU28 geographical group, 20072016. Source: Scopus. 

4. H2020 output 

The research and publishing phases of science are affected by time lags, and as such the earliest year in which there 

are output data from H2020-funded research is 2015. Presented in this chapter are data from the years 2015 and 

2016. These years overlap with those that have output from FP7 -funded

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
research which serves to further highlight the, sometimes significant, delay between receiving funding and observing 

the output of research resulting from that funding. 

H2020 
E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

2015 
1,165 

1,123 

2016 
1,827 

1,757 

2015-2016 
2,992 

2,880 

153 

148 

333 

69 

16 
46 

164 

210 

257 

596 

104 

20 

62 
292 

363 

405 

929 

173 

36 

108 
456 

Tab le  4.1  -  Total  pub lication  output  of  H2020-funded  research  per  geographical  group,  per  year  20152016. 

Source: Scopus. 

It is immediately apparent that the volume of publications from the first year of output for H2020 research was lower 

than for FP7. However, as more data becomes available, we expect the numbers to increase. Presented in Figure 

4.1 is a graphical representation of the output from H2020-funded research. For all groups and comparator countries, 

a noticeable increase between years is seen. Output from the EU 15 geographical group comprise the bulk of the EU 

28 group. The US has the highest number of publications for the comparator countries, as also seen in FP7 -funded 

output. 

2
,
0
0
1,500 
0 

1,000 

500 

C 
o 
03 
_o 

Q. 

IQ 
3 
o 
<D 

-Ω 
E 

Figure 4.1 - 

Comparator  - H2020  - All Total  output, 2015-2016 

E28 

E15 

2015 

2016 

JPN 

USA 

Total pub lication output of H2020-funded research per geographical group and comparator country, per year 2015-

2016. Source: Scopus.

 
 
 
 
 
Comparator  - framew ork share of output  - All Total  output,  2015-2016 

0.40% 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

Figure  4.2  -H2020-funded  research 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

share of overall output per geographical 

■ 2016 

group and comparator country, per yea r 

2015-2016. Source: Scopus. 

0.

35% 

0.

30% 

0.25% 

i 0.20% 

0.15% 

cu 

0.10% 

t/l 

0.05% 

0.00% 

Figure 4.2 highlights the H2020-funded share of overall output for each entity. Shares for all geographical groups 

have more than doubled, and similar rises are seen for each of the comparator countries. The initial shares and share 

■ 2015 

increases are slightly higher than those seen for FP7-funded output. 

Field-weighted citation impact 

The FWCI of H2020-funded research is above the world average for all groups and countries. For each of the 

geographical groups, FWCI has increased between years, but the same pattern i s not observed for the comparator 

countries. Only the US and China appear to have at least similar FWCI values between 2015 and 2016, whereas 

Japan and South Korea display a declining FWCI between years. However, the FWCI values at the country level may 

be affected by outliers and low publication counts. As these publications attract citations over time, we do expect the 

FWCI values to change for all groups and countries. Figure 4.3 provides a graphical representation of the FWCI 

values for each entity. 

6.0 

Comparator  - H2020  - All Total  FWCI,  per year 2015-2016 

2016 

2015 
Figure 4.3 - H2020-funded pub lication FWCI per geographical group and comparator country, per year 

2015-2016. Source: Scopus. 

 
 
 
 
 
5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

Keeping in line with data from analysis of FP7-funded output, provided in Figure 4.4 is the ratio of the FWCI of 

H2020-funded research versus overall FWCI. For all groups in 2015, the ratio is above 1.7 signifying that H2020 -

funded output was at least 70% higher than the overall FWCI. The EU 13 group enjoyed the highest relative 

increase, between 2015 and 2016, over their own overall FWCI, with 1.84 and 2.29 ratio increases, respectively.  

AC 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

E28  ■  

E13 

E15 

Comparator  - ratio of framew ork to non-framew ork - All Total  FWCI,  per year 2015-2016 

2015 

2016 

■ H a l  

Figure 4.4 - Ratio of H2020-funded pub lication FWCI to overall FWCI per geographical group and comparator 

.

h
JPN 

USA 

country, per year 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

H2020 top cited publications  

H2020-funded research provided high shares of publications in the world's top 1, 5 and 10% of most cited 

publications. This is true for all comparator groups, across both 2015 and 2016. Figure 4.5 provides an overview of 

the share of H2020-funded publications that are found in the world's top cited publication categories. In Figure 4.6, for 

each top cited category, additional data are provided in ratio form demonstrating how much higher or lower H2020 -

funded research occurs in the top cited category compared to overall 

u
n 

output. 

■
σ 
0J 
’ū 

Q. 
O 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

Comparator  - H2020  - All Total  share in w orld top percentiles,  2015-2016 

• 

• 
• 

· 

· 
· 

USA 

KOR 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC
TC
CHN 

JPN 

• Top 1% · Top 5% · Top 10% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.5 - Shares of H2020-funded research in world top cited research categories, per geographical group and 

country, 2015-2016. Source: Scopus. 

 
 
 
т
а 
jz 
Í/
1 
O 
O 

14.0 

12.0 

10.0 

8.0 

6.0 

4.0 

2.0 

0.0 

Comparator  - ratio of framew ork shares to non-framew ork shares in w orld 
top percentiles, 

E28 

• 

• 

E15 
• 

• 

• 

• 

E13 
• Top 1% · Top 5% · Top 10% 

AC 

TC 

2015-2016 

1 

CHN 

1 

KOR 

• 

• 

• 

• 

JPN 

USA 

Figure 4.6 - Ratio of H2020-funded research versus overall output in world top cited research categories, per 

geographical group and country, 2007-2016. Source: Scopus. 

Of the world's top 1% of cited research, H2020-funded output for all comparator groups are proportionally much 

higher than the comparators' overall output in the world's top 1% of cited research. For 2015 and 2016, the  EU 28 

group H2020-funded output was 3.74 times more represented in the top 1% category than the group's overall output. 

For EU 15 and EU 13, H2020-funded output was proportionally higher in the top 1% category by factors of 3.65 and 

5.57 respectively. 

At  the country level, Japan enjoyed the highest ratio of shares, with H2020 -funded publications found in the top 1% 

category 11.45 times more than its  own overall output, 3.94 times more for the top 5% category and 3.43 times more 

in the top 10% category. 

H2020 interdisciplinary output 

The proportion of interdisciplinary H2020-funded research is initially high, as also seen with FP7-funded 

interdisciplinary research. However, compared to FP7 data in subsequent years, the interdisciplinary H2020 research 

share is increasing. Table 4.2 provides the number of interdisciplinary publications for each comparator entity, and 

Figure 4.7 demonstrates the share growth from 2015 to 2016. 

H2020 
E28 

2015 
74 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

67 

14 

9 

21 

7 

- 

- 

11 

2016 
152 

143 

2015-2016 
226 

210 

23 

31 

34 

5 

- 

- 

17 

37 

40 

55 

12 

- 

- 

28 

Tab le  4.2  -  Total  interdisciplinary 

pub lication  output  of  H2020-funded 

research per geographical group and 

comparator  country,  per  year  2015-

2016. Source: Scopus. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_ 14% 
03 
12% 

10% 
03 

« 8% > 

6% 

4% 

2% 
_c 
0% 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

USA 

JPN 

Comparator  - H2020  - All Total  interdisciplinary  output  share of total, 2015-2016 

2015 

2016 

Figure 4.7- Interdisciplinary share of H2020-funded output per geographical group, per year 2015-2016. Source: 

Scopus. 

For each of the geographical groups a marked increase can be seen in the shares between 2015 and 2016. For the 

comparator countries, South Korea and Japan have no interdisciplinary output, and the  shares for China and the US 

are declining. It should be noted that, as with FP7 interdisciplinary data, it is likely that as H2020 publication volumes 

increase, interdisciplinary shares will stabilise over time. 

FWCI values for H2020 interdisciplinary output are presented in Figure 4.8. A degree of caution is required when 

interpreting these data: low publication counts and associated outliers will likely affect FWCI values. Thus, with this is 

mind, FWCI increases for the EU 28 and EU 15 groups, but declines drastically for the EU 13, AC and TC groups. 

Similarly sharp declines can be seen at the country level, and data for South Korea and Japan are not available as 

they have no H2020 interdisciplinary publications.

Comparator  - H2020  - All Total  interdisciplinary  FWCI,  2015-2016  5.0 

2015 

2016 

Figure  4.8 - Interdisciplinary  share  of H2020-funded  output  per  geographical  group,  per  year  2015-2016. 
Source:  Scopus. 

 
 
 
 
The  ratio  of  H2020  interdisciplinary  FWCI  compared to overall interdisciplinary FWCI is positive in that H2020 -
Sector single-author  publication  share of all  publications:  H2020  Total  All, 2015-2016 
funded interdisciplinary output achieves higher impact than their respective overall IDR output,  as seen in Figure 

4.9. 

4.5 

4
.
3.5 
0
3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 
0
1.0 
.
0.5 

0 

Comparator  - H2020  to non-framew ork ratio- All Total  interdisciplinary  FWCI,  2015-2016 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

2015 

2016 

Figure 4.9 - Ratio of H2020 -funded interdisciplinary FWCI to overall interdisciplinary output FWCI per geographical 

group and comparator country, per year 2015-2016. Source: Scopus. 

H2020 collaboration 

Collaborative publications in H2020-funded output are overwhelmingly dominated by international collaborations. 

International collaborations also display consistently high FWCI values, as compared to other collaboration types 

and publications overall. Presented in the following figures, 4.10 to 4.13, are the shares and FWCI values of single-

authored, institutional, national and international collaborative H2020 publications.

 
 
 
25.0% 

§ 20.0% 

15.0% 

10.0% 

5.0% 

0.0% 

u 
3 

Ω. 

o 
cu 

t/l 

3.5 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

2015 

2016 

Sector single-author  publication  FWCI:  H2020  Total  All, 2015-2016 

2015 

2016 

Figure 4.10 - Single-authored shares of all H2020-funded output, and respective FWCI values per 

geographical group and comparator country, per year 2015-2016. Source: Scopus. 

Shares of single-authored publications have declined from already low levels of just under 3% in 2015 to almost 2% 

in 2016 for each comparator entity. Only China had shares higher than 4% in 2015, but had no single -authored 

H2020 publications in 2016. FWCI for single-authored publications was just over the world average, 1.0, in 2015 but 

dropped to below 1.0 in 2016.

 
 
20% 

15% 

10% 
Sector institutional  publication  share of all  publications:  H2020  Total  All, 2015-2016 
25% 
5% 

U 
D 
Ω- 

o 
cu 

t/i 

0% 

18.0 

16.0 

14.0 

12.0 

10.0 

8.0 

6.0 

4.0 

2.0 

0.0 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

2015 

2016 

Sector institutional  publication  FWCI:  H2020  Total  All, 2015-2016 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 
2015 

TC 

2016 

CHN 

1- 

KO
R 

JPN 

USA 

Figure 4.11 - Institutional collab oration shares of all H2020-funded output, and respective FWCI values per 

geographical group and comparator country, per year 2015 -2016. Source: Scopus. 

Institutional collaborations are at approximately the same levels as FP7-funded research, with no clear pattern of 

decline or rise in shares between geographic groups or countries. FWCI values for 2016 show increases over 2015 

values for all entities except EU 13 and AC groups.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10% 
0% 
20% 
40% 30% 

E28 

E15 

E13 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

AC 

TC 

2015 

2016 

Sector national  publication  FWCI:  H2020  Total,  2015-2016 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 
Sector national  publication  share of all  publications:  H2020  Total  All, 2015-2016 
50% 
10.0 

5.0 

0.0 

E28 

E15 

E13 

AC 

TC 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

2015 

2016 

World average:  1.0 

Figure 4.12 - National collab oration shares of all H2020-funded output, and respective FWCI values per geographical 

group and comparator country, per year 2015-2016. Source: Scopus. 

National collaboration shares are declining for the EU 28 and EU 15 groups. Shares remain steady for the EU 13, TC 

and AC groups. South Korea has no national collaboration H2020 publications for both 2015 and 2016, and the US 

has no H2020-funded national collaboration publications in 2016. FWCI remains steady for most of the comparator 

entities with the exception of the TC group which saw a large increase in FWCI in 2016.

 
 
20% 0% 
40% 
80% 60% 

E28 

E15 

E13 

Sector international  publication  FWCI:  H2020  Total,  2015-2016 

CHN 

KOR 

JPN 

USA 

6.0 

100% 
Sector international  publication  share of all  publications:  H2020  Total  All, 2015-2016 

2016 

2015 
Figure 4.13 - International collaboration shares of all H2020-funded output, and respective FWCI value s p e r 

geographical group and comparator country, per year 2015-2016. Source: Scopus. 

AC 

TC 

2016 

2015 

HI
HII 

International shares for the EU groups were relatively low, due to the definition of international collaboration. For the 

non-EU groups, TC and AC, international collaboration share was very high with over 80% of all output. The 

comparator countries also displayed very high international collaboration shares, and South Korea's H2020 

publication output was exclusively of the international collaboration type. FWCI for international collaboration was the 

highest of all the collaboration types, with all entities' FWCI higher than the  world average. 

5. FP7- and H2020-funded collaboration maps 

Network maps provide graphical representations of the collaboration patterns between entities. Each node represents 

a publishing entity with each link, or edge, indicating that authors from  the two entities have collaborated on one or 

more publications2. To draw attention to entities that collaborate frequently and repeatedly with the same partners, 

nodes are coloured to represent these clusters. Clusters are designated algorithmically where in the degree of the 

nodes, that is to say the number of

2 Publications are defined as articles, reviews and conference proceedings. 

 
 
 
                                                 
links from or to a node, and the volume of these links, generally indicated by the thickness of the links, are used to 
calculate which nodes show historically strong grouping characteristics.3 

Collaborations between the EU 28 geographical group and countries around the world are shown in the network map 

in Figure 5.1. OF the collaborations, the EU 28 group is very  central with its core collaborators in close proximity. 

Many  countries appear to collaborate in publications with only themselves and an EU28 group member. These 

countries are shown as the single-linked nodes in the top left of the figure. This is not the norm as seen by the 

extensive links between other country nodes and the EU 28 node. The most frequent collaborations occur between 

the EU 28 group, the US, Japan, Canada, China, Russia and Switzerland. 

Figure 5.1 - FP7-funded inter collaboration between EU28 geographical group and non-EU28 countries, 

2007-2016. Node colour is determined algorithmically to designate clusters. Nodes that have similar collaboration 

pattersn and volume of collab orations have the same colour. Node size is numb er of FP7 pub lications. Edge 

thickness is numb er of collab oration publications b etween entities. Collaborations with less than 100 publications 

have been removed to improve readability. Source: Scopus. 

The intra-EU 28 collaborations are shown in Figure 5.2. The most frequent collaborations occur between the larger 

and more R&D intensive countries. Collaboration frequencies are highest between these countries, but the smaller 

research nations do collaborate often with each other and with at least one of the R&D intensive nations. The UK, 

Netherlands and Germany form one cluster, and Spain, Italy and France form another. There are two smaller clusters 

3 The mechanics and process of the clustering algorithm can be found in ‘Fast unfolding of communities in large 
networks', Vincent D Blondel, Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, Etienne Lefebvre, Journal of Statistical 
Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008 (10), P10008 (12pp) 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
with the Nordic countries, Belgium and Ireland in one, and eastern European countries in the other. 

Figure 5.2 - FP7-funded intra-EU28 collaboration, 2007-2016. Node colour is 

determined algorithmically to designate clusters. Nodes that have similar collab orations and 

volume of collab orations have the same colour. Node size is numb er of FP7 pub lications. 

Edge thickness is numb er of collab oration publications b etween entities. Collaborations with 

less than 100 publications have been removed to improve readability. LV, MT  and LU have 

less than 100 collaboration publications with any one partner. Source: Scopus. 

Collaboration patterns for H2020-funded research occurs in a different pattern to FP7-funded research. This, however, 

is likely due to the lower number of publications in general so far from H2020. The network map of H2020 -funded 

collaboration between the EU 28 group and non-EU 28 countries is presented in Figure 5.3. As with FP7-funded 

collaborations, the most frequent collaborations occur between the EU 28 group, the US, Japan, Canada, China, 

Russia and Switzerland. More noticeable in this network map is the prominent role that the US has in collabor ations 

between the EU 28 and other countries. 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5.3 - H2020-funded inter collaboration between EU28 geographical group and non-EU28 
countries, 2015-2016. Node colour is determined algorithmically to designate clusters. Nodes that have 

similar collaborations and volume of collab orations have the same colour. Node size is numb er of H2020 

pub lications. Edge thickness is numb er of collab oration publications b etween entities. Edge lab els are 

numb er of collab orations. Source: Scopus. 

Figure 5.4 presents the H2020-funded intra-collaboration map of EU 28 countries. The orientation of the nodes has 

been kept constant in relation to the FP7 intra EU 28 map to aid the comparison between the two frameworks. 

However, the clusters shown are different. While Germany, The Netherlands and the UK remain in the same cluster, 

Belgium and France are now part of the same cluster. Spain and Italy remain part of their original cluster but now have 

more, smaller countries as part of their cluster. While the Nordics and Ireland formed their own distinct cluster, they 

are now joined by more of the eastern European countries. It should be noted that in the H2020 map, all 

collaborations are shown but the FP7 map has been edited to show only collaborations with more than 100 

publications.

 
 
 
 
Figure 5.4 - H2020 intra-EU28 collaboration, 2015-2016. Node colour is determined 

algorithmically to designate clusters. Nodes that have similar collaborations and volume of 

collab orations have the same colour. Node size is numb er of H2020 pub lications. Edge 

thickness is numb er of collab oration publications b etween entities. Node position has been 

preserved between this figure and Figure 4.2 to compare FP7 and H2020 collaborations. MT 

has no H2020 collaborations with any other EU28 member. Source: Scopus. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix A 

Methodology and Data Sources Methodology and 

Rationale 

Our methodology is based on the theoretical principles and best practices developed in the field of quantitative 

science and technology studies, particularly in science and technology indicators resear ch. The Handb ook of 

Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Pub lication and Patent Statistics in Studies of 
S&TSystems (Moed, Glänzel and Schmoch, 2004)4 gives a good overview of this field and is based on the pioneering 
work of Derek de Solla Price (1978),5 Eugene Garfield (1979)6 and Francis Narin (1976)7 in the US, and Christopher 

Freeman, Ben Martin and John Irvine in the UK (1981, 1987) 8, and in several European institutions including the 

Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University, the Netherlands, and the Library of the Academy of 

Sciences in Budapest, Hungary. 

The analyses of bibliometric data in this report are based upon recognized advanced indicators (e.g., the concept of 

relative citation impact rates). Our bas e assumption is that such indicators are useful and valid, though imperfect and 

partial measures, in the sense that their numerical values are determined by research performance and related 

concepts, but also by other, influencing factors that may cause systematic biases. In the past decade, the field of 

indicators research has developed a best practices which state how indicator results should be interpreted and which 

influencing factors should be taken into account. Our methodology builds on these practic es. 

Counting 

All analyses make use of whole counting rather than fractional counting. For example, if a paper has been co -

authored by one author from the EU 28 group and one author from the TC group, then that paper counts towards both 

the publication count of EU 28, as well as the publication count of the TC group. Total counts for each entity are the 

unique count of publications. 

Collaboration 

Research collaboration is indicated by articles with at least two different entities listed in the authorship by-line. 

Collaborations in this report can be classified as: 

Institutional: all authors are from the same institution. 

National: authors are affiliated with at least two countries within a geographic group. International: at least 

one author is from a country outside of the geographic group. Single-authored publications are used as a 

benchmark in this report. 

Data Sources 

Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature, covering 62 million documents 

published in over 22,500 journals, book series and conference proceedings by some 6,000 publishers. 

4  Moed H., Glänzel W., & Schmoch U. (2004). Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technolo gy Research, Kluwer: 
Dordrecht. 
5 de Solla Price, D.J. (1977-1978). "Foreword," Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol. 3, v-ix. 
6 Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1 (4), 359 -375. 
7  Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory with 
application to literature of physics. Information Processing & Management 12 (5): 297 -312. 
8  Irvine, J., Martin, B. R., Abraham, J. & Peacock, T. (1987). Assessing basic research: Reappraisal and update of 
an evaluation of four radio astronomy observatories. Research Policy, 16(2 -4), 213-227. 

 
 
                                                 
Scopus coverage is multi-lingual and global: approximately 21% of titles in Scopus are published in languages other 

than English (or published in both English and another language). In addition, more than half of Scopus content 

originates from outside North America, representing many countries in Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Asia 

Pacific region. Scopus covers approximately 6,400 titles from North - America, 11,800 from Europe and 2,500 from 

Asia-Pacific and 1,500 from Latin-America and Africa. The geographical breadth of Scopus ensures comprehensive 

coverage of research outputs and impact of regionally-collaborated research. 

Scopus coverage is also inclusive across all major research fields, with 7,500 titles in the Physical Sciences, 6,800 in 

the Health Sciences, 4,500 in the Life Sciences, and 8,100 in the Social Sciences (the latter including some 2,800 

Arts & Humanities related titles). Titles which are covered are predomin antly serial publications (journals, trade 

journals, book series and conference material), but considerable numbers of conference papers are also covered from 

stand-alone proceedings volumes (a major dissemination mechanism, particularly in the computer sc iences). 

Acknowledging that a great deal of important literature in all fields (but especially in the Social Sciences and Arts & 

Humanities) is published in books, Scopus has begun to increase book coverage in 2013, and currently covers more 

than 121,000 books. 

For this report, a static version of the Scopus database covering the period 2007 -2016 inclusive was aggregated by 

geographical group, and subject. Subjects were defined for all subject areas, and by ASJC subject areas. When 

aggregating article and citation counts, an integer counting method was employed where, for example, a paper with 

two authors from a TC group country and one a EU 28 group country would be counted as one article for each group 

(i.e. 1 TC and 1 EU 28). This method was favoured over fractional counting, in which the above paper would count as 

0.67 for TC and 0.33 for the EU 28, to maintain consistency with other reports (both public and private) we have 

conducted on the topic. 

A body of literature is available on the limitations and caveats in the use of such 'bibliometric' data, such as the 

accumulation of citations over time, the skewed distribution of citations across articles, and differences in publication 

and citation practices between fields of research, different languages, and applicability to social sciences and 

humanities research. In social sciences and humanities, the bibliometric indicators presented in this report for these 

fields must be interpreted with caution because a reasonable proportion of rese arch outputs in such fields take the 

form of books, monographs and non-textual media. As such, analyses of journal articles, their usage and citation, 

provides a less comprehensive view than in other fields, where journal articles comprise the vast majority of research 

outputs.

 
 
Appendix B 

Glossary of terms  

Article/Publication types (unless otherwise indicated) denotes the main types of peer reviewed documents 

published in journals: articles, reviews, and conference papers. 

Article/Publication output for an entity is the count of articles with at least one author from that geographical group 

respectively (according to the affiliation listed in the authorship byline). All analyses make use of 'whole' rather than 

'fractional' counting: an article representing international collaboration (with at least two different geographical groups 

listed in the authorship byline) is counted once each for every  entity listed. 

Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is defined as the year-over-year constant growth rate over a specified 

period of time. Starting with the first value in any series and applying this rate for each of the time intervals yields the 

amount in the final value of the series. 

1 
CAGR(ťo,fn) = (V(ťn)/nío))^-l 

^(M:  start value 

^ (r«): finish value 

ŕ« — ¿o: number of years. 

Citation is a formal reference to earlier work made in an article or patent, frequently to other journal articles. A 

citation is used to credit the originator of an idea or finding and is usually used to indicate that the earlier work 

supports the claims of the work citing it. The number of citations received by an article from subsequently-published 

articles is a proxy  of the importance of the reported research. 

Field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) is an indicator of mean citation impact, and compares the actual number of 

citations received by an article with the expected number of citations for articles of the same document type (article, 

review or conference proceeding paper), publication year and subject field. When an article is classified i n two or more 

subject fields, the harmonic mean of the actual and expected citation rates is used. The indicator is therefore always 

defined with reference to a global baseline of 1.0 and intrinsically accounts for differences in citation accrual over time, 

differences in citation rates for different document types (reviews typically attract more citations than research articles, 

for example) as well as subject-specific differences in citation frequencies overall and over time and document types. 

It is one of the most sophisticated indicators in the modern bibliometric toolkit. 

When field-weighted citation impact is used as a snapshot, an un-weighted variable window is applied. The field-

weighted citation impact value for '2008', for example, is comprised of articles published in 2008 and their field-

weighted citation impact in the period 2008-12, while for '2012,' it is comprised of articles published in 2012 and their 

field-weighted citation impact in 2012 alone. When field-weighted citation impact is used in trend analysis, a weighted 

moving window is applied. The field-weighted citation impact value for '2010', for example, is comprised of the 

weighted average of the unweighted variable field-weighted citation impact values for 2008 and 2012 (weighted 13.3% 

each), 2009 and 2011 (weighted 20% each) and for 2010 (weighted 33.3%). The weighting applies in the same ratios 

for previous years also. However, for 2011 and 2012 it is not possible to extend the weighted average by 2 years on 

either side, so weightings are readjusted across the remaining available values. 

Highly-cited articles are those in the top cited X% of all articles published and cited in a given period. 

 
 
An entity's number or share of highly-cited articles is treated as indicative of the excellence of their research. In this 

report, we present data on top 1, 5 and 10% cited articles. 

International collaboration (i.e., research collaboration) in this report is indicated by articles with at least two 

different geographical groups listed in the authorship byline. 

Institutional collaboration (i.e., research collaboration) in this report is indicated by articles with a single institute 

listed in the authorship byline. 

National collaboration (i.e., research collaboration) in this report is indicated by articles with at least two different 

institutes from the same geographical group listed in the authorship byline. 

Collaboration type labels are mutually exclusive. An international collaboration cannot be counted as a national or 

institutional publications. 

Journal is a peer-reviewed periodical in which scholarship relating to a particular research field is published, and is 

the primary mode of dissemination of knowledge in many fields. Research findings may also be published in 

conference proceedings, reports, monographs and books and the significance of these as an output channel varies 

between fields.