Frontier Knowledge and Scientific Production: Evidence from the Collapse of International Science*
Quarterly Journal of Economics · 2017 · Alessandro Iaria、Carlo Schwarz、Fabian Waldinger
中文摘要
我们表明，第一次世界大战及随后对同盟国科学家的抵制严重中断了国际科学合作。1914年之后，对国外近期研究的引用减少，论文标题的相似度降低（采用潜在语义分析评估），这提示国际知识流动有所减少。国际科学合作的减少导致基础科学产出及其在新技术中的应用减少。具体而言，我们将依赖国外前沿研究的科学家的生产率变化，与依赖国内前沿研究的科学家的生产率变化进行比较。1914年之后，依赖国外前沿研究的科学家在顶级科学期刊上发表的论文更少，产出的获诺贝尔奖提名的研究成果更少，引入的新科学词汇更少，而且引入的、后来出现在授权专利文本中的新词汇也更少。依赖排名前1%的研究的科学家，其生产率下降幅度是依赖排名前3%的研究的科学家的两倍。此外，高产科学家的生产率绝对下降幅度最大。这提示，获取最顶尖的研究是科学和技术进步的关键。
Abstract
We show that World War I and the subsequent boycott against Central scientists severely interrupted international scientific cooperation. After 1914, citations to recent research from abroad decreased and paper titles became less similar (evaluated by latent semantic analysis), suggesting a reduction in international knowledge flows. Reduced international scientific cooperation led to a decline in the production of basic science and its application in new technology. Specifically, we compare productivity changes for scientists who relied on frontier research from abroad, to changes for scientists who relied on frontier research from home. After 1914, scientists who relied on frontier research from abroad published fewer papers in top scientific journals, produced less Nobel Prize-nominated research, introduced fewer novel scientific words, and introduced fewer novel words that appeared in the text of subsequent patent grants. The productivity of scientists who relied on top 1% research declined twice as much as the productivity of scientists who relied on top 3% research. Furthermore, highly prolific scientists experienced the starkest absolute productivity declines. This suggests that access to the very best research is key for scientific and technological progress.