IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v113y2017i2d10.1007_s11192-017-2505-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping farm animal welfare research in an enlarged Europe: international collaboration, bibliometric output, research resources and relation to economic indices

Author

Listed:
  • Marlene K. Kirchner

    (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)
    University of Copenhagen)

  • Ľubor Košťál

    (Slovak Academy of Sciences)

  • Boris Bilčík

    (Slovak Academy of Sciences)

  • Christoph Winckler

    (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU))

Abstract

Against the background of divergent political developments across Europe, farm animal welfare (FAW) science has evolved during the last three decades as an inter-disciplinary research area. Recent achievements include pan-European research projects and the implementation of animal welfare assessment systems on-farm. The aim of this study was mapping activities for FAW science and investigating geographical differences in FAW research in Europe (EU28 + candidate countries and the European Economic Area) with regard to available resources (e.g. human resources, infrastructure, funding) and research output (e.g. collaborations and publications). Further, we enquired if economic attributes such as the Coefficient of National Innovation Capacity (NIC) were associated with the reported available resources and research output factors (publications and collaborations) of FAW research. Based on questionnaires sent out to a wide researcher network in regions of an enlarged Europe, we found differences with regard to ‘input factors’ such as human resources, animal and laboratory facilities and national and international research funding and ‘output factors’ such as inter/national collaboration, participation in EU-funded projects related to FAW and number of publications. Respondents were allocated to 4 Western and 4 Eastern geographical clusters of countries (‘hubs’). There were a larger number of researchers, students and technical staff per laboratory in Western compared to Eastern hubs. A pronounced difference was found for funding, as 35% of respondents in the Eastern hubs stated that they lack funded FAW projects compared to 4% in the West. In general, respondents from the Western hubs stated significantly more often that they run projects in the field of FAW research (p = 0.034). Furthermore they were significantly more involved in EU-funded schemes, such as FP7 (EU’s Research and Innovation Funding Programme for 2007–2013) with 24% (p = 0.013) and in ERA-NET Cofund projects (European Research Area—Coordination of Research Programmes) with 5.7% (p = 0.042). The average sum of impact factors from 5 self-named citations was 3.0 ± 2.8 (mean, SD) in the Eastern hubs and 7.5 ± 4.4 in the Western Hubs. When investigating associations of the economic status of EU countries with resource factors and achievements in FAW research, the ‘Coefficient of National Innovation Capacity (NIC)’ was moderately correlated with the input factors for FAW research such as the average number of PhDs currently employed in the institutions (r s = 0.66; p

Suggested Citation

  • Marlene K. Kirchner & Ľubor Košťál & Boris Bilčík & Christoph Winckler, 2017. "Mapping farm animal welfare research in an enlarged Europe: international collaboration, bibliometric output, research resources and relation to economic indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 909-922, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:113:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2505-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2505-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2505-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2505-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian n Wichmann Matthiessen & Annette Winkel Schwarz, 1999. "Scientific Centres in Europe: An Analysis of Research Strength and Patterns of Specialisation Based on Bibliometric Indicators," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 36(3), pages 453-477, March.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Walch-Solimena, Christiane & Ettl, Christoph, 2011. "Mapping excellence in the geography of science: An approach based on Scopus data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 537-546.
    3. Hoekman, Jarno & Frenken, Koen & Tijssen, Robert J.W., 2010. "Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 662-673, June.
    4. Slavo Radosevic, 2004. "A Two‐Tier or Multi‐Tier Europe? Assessing the Innovation Capacities of Central and East European Countries in the Enlarged EU," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 641-666, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhigang Hu & Gege Lin & Taian Sun & Xianwen Wang, 2018. "An EU without the UK: mapping the UK’s changing roles in the EU scientific research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1185-1198, June.
    2. Maxim Kotsemir, 2019. "Unmanned aerial vehicles research in Scopus: an analysis and visualization of publication activity and research collaboration at the country level," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 2143-2173, July.
    3. Naser Rashidi & Hussein Meihami, 2018. "Informetrics of Scientometrics abstracts: a rhetorical move analysis of the research abstracts published in Scientometrics journal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1975-1994, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Csomós, György, 2018. "Reprint of “A spatial scientometric analysis of the publication output of cities worldwide”," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 547-566.
    2. Per Ahlgren & Olle Persson & Robert Tijssen, 2013. "Geographical distance in bibliometric relations within epistemic communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 771-784, May.
    3. Maisonobe, Marion & Eckert, Denis & Grossetti, Michel & Jégou, Laurent & Milard, Béatrice, 2016. "The world network of scientific collaborations between cities: domestic or international dynamics?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1025-1036.
    4. Matthias Firgo & Peter Mayerhofer, 2015. "Wissens-Spillovers und regionale Entwicklung - welche strukturpolitische Ausrichtung optimiert des Wachstum?," Working Paper Reihe der AK Wien - Materialien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 144, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik.
    5. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Jürgen Lerner, 2021. "The coauthorship networks of the most productive European researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 201-224, January.
    6. Hoekman, Jarno & Rake, Bastian, 2024. "Geography of authorship: How geography shapes authorship attribution in big team science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    7. Laurent R. Bergé, 2017. "Network proximity in the geography of research collaboration," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96(4), pages 785-815, November.
    8. Sara Amoroso & Alex Coad & Nicola Grassano, 2017. "European R&D networks: A snapshot from the 7th EU Framework Programme," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation JRC107546, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    9. Kaihuang Zhang & Qinglan Qian & Yijing Zhao, 2020. "Evolution of Guangzhou Biomedical Industry Innovation Network Structure and Its Proximity Mechanism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Duschl, Matthias & Schimke, Antje & Brenner, Thomas & Luxen, Dennis, 2011. "Firm growth and the spatial impact of geolocated external factors: Empirical evidence for German manufacturing firms," Working Paper Series in Economics 36, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    11. Önder, Ali Sina & Schweitzer, Sascha & Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2021. "Specialization, field distance, and quality in economists’ collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    12. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2012. "Which are the best performing regions in information science in terms of highly cited papers? Some improvements of our previous mapping approaches," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 336-345.
    13. Wang, Yunmin & Cao, Guohua & Yan, Youliang & Wang, Jingjing, 2022. "Does high-speed rail stimulate cross-city technological innovation collaboration? Evidence from China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 119-131.
    14. Jiri Vanecek, 2008. "Bibliometric analysis of the Czech research publications from 1994 to 2005," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 345-360, November.
    15. Hiroyasu Inoue & Kentaro Nakajima & Yukiko Umeno Saito, 2019. "Localization of collaborations in knowledge creation," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 62(1), pages 119-140, February.
    16. Cui Zhang & Jing Guo, 2017. "China’s international research collaboration: evidence from a panel gravity model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1129-1139, November.
    17. Chen, Guanghua & Yang, Guoliang & He, Feng & Chen, Kaihua, 2019. "Exploring the effect of political borders on university-industry collaborative research performance: Evidence from China’s Guangdong province," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 58-69.
    18. Shinya Suzuki, 2017. "International University–Industry Linkage: Impact on Firm Technological Performance," Millennial Asia, , vol. 8(1), pages 48-63, April.
    19. Dendi Ramdani & Arjen Witteloostuijn & Johanna Vanderstraeten & Julie Hermans & Marcus Dejardin, 2019. "The perceived benefits of the European Union standardization. An exploration according to firm size and firm capabilities," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 379-396, April.
    20. Morescalchi, Andrea & Pammolli, Fabio & Penner, Orion & Petersen, Alexander M. & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2015. "The evolution of networks of innovators within and across borders: Evidence from patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 651-668.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:113:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2505-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.