alternative energy study

For more information about our SciVal suite of products, please contact your nearest Elsevier Regional Sales Office.

North, Central and South America

E-Customer Service Department3251 Riverport LaneMaryland Heights, MO 63043

Email: [email protected]: 1 888 615 4500 (+1 314 523 4900, if calling from outside the USA and Canada)

South America

E-Customer ServiceRua Sete de Setembro, 111/16 AndarRio de Janeiro – RJ – 20050-006 –Brazil

Tel: +55 21 3970 9300Fax: +55 21 2507 1991Email: [email protected]

Japan

E-Customer Service1-9-15 Higashi-Azabu, Minato-kuTokyo 106-0044, Japan


Europe, Middle East and Africa

E-Customer ServiceP.O. Box 2111000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands


Asia and Australasia

E-Customer Service3 Killiney Road #08-01Winsland House 1Singapore 239519


www.scival.com© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All Rights Reserved.

Alternative Energy Leadership StudyMeasuring Performance Through a Multidisciplinary Lens

February 2010

www.scival.com

Dr. Kevin W. Boyack Senior Development Advisor and Study Analyst for Academic & Government Products Elsevier B.V.

Introduction

The world relies predominantly on carbon-based energy

sources such as oil, gas, and coal to meet its energy needs.

Given that these resources are finite and a major cause of

pollution, scientists and engineers have sought for decades

to develop alternative energy sources.

Drawing an accurate picture of how universities and countries are performing with respect to alternative energy-related research is critical for understanding the potential solutions emerging from this science. Without proper insight, academic and government bodies cannot make appropriate funding decisions or develop strategic blueprints that will lead them to the scientific breakthroughs crucial to long-term alternative energy solutions and economic success.

Solving today’s most pressing scientific challenges increasingly requires a multidisciplinary approach. Yet, the traditional methods for measuring output no longer capture the reality of how research is being conducted. This study examines alternative energy research from a multidisciplinary perspective, identifying leading institutions (primarily universities) using a new model of science and illustrating how leadership can be masked under current performance measurement systems.

Highlights of the proof-of-principle study were shared in a recent webcast:

Over one thousand academic and government executives, researchers, and librarians joined live or viewed the recorded version to learn more about the methodology behind the study which demonstrates a new way to determine leadership.

“ Research Leadership Redefined… Measuring Performance in a Multidisciplinary Landscape.”

page_1 page_14

Kevin Boyack, is a Senior Development Advisor for Elsevier and a recognized authority on multidisciplinary research. His work includes “Visualizing Knowledge Domains www.cs.indiana.edu/~bmarkine/oral/visualizing-knowledge.pdf” published in the Annual Review of Information Science & Technology and his expertise spans information visualization, knowledge domains, science mapping with associated metrics and indicators, network analysis, and the integration and analysis of multiple data types.

Dr. Kevin W. Boyack Senior Development Advisor and Study Analyst for Academic & Government Products Elsevier B.V.

References

1. SciTech Strategies, Inc. Working Paper 2008-01. Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. Identifying distinctive competencies in science.

2. Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (in press). Toward an objective, reliable, and accurate method for measuring research leadership. Scientometrics.

3. KLAVANS, R. Taxonomies; International Comparisons & Policy Applications. Visualization Workshop at National Science Foundation (2008).

Alternative Energy Leadership Study

Background

In today’s world, research output is often evaluated based on the

journal in which it is published. Each scientific journal is classified

into a broad field despite the fact that journals are progressively

covering a wide array of topics that are not necessarily reflected

in their field classification. By its nature, this system only allows for

a simplistic view of current research initiatives leaving significant

work unaccounted for and overlooked.

Responding to the need for a more insightful, multidisciplinary perspective on research performance, Elsevier developed SciVal Spotlight, a performance measurement tool based on a more detailed model of the current structure of science. The model was developed using Scopus, Elsevier’s abstract and citation database of peer reviewed literature and the world’s largest of its kind. The model includes 5.6 million separate research papers published between 2003 and 2007, along with another 2 million of the reference papers that these publications cite heavily. This content was then divided into about 84,000 clusters or paradigms (see Figure 1).

Each of these paradigms contains many research papers, and is centered on a separate and highly specific topic, (e.g. first-order kinetic effects in iron oxide fuel cells) in science. Taken as a whole, these clusters of papers (and thus the SciVal Spotlight model of science) cover almost all of the science that is being published by universities, industry, and government labs today.

Figure 1. The Circle of Science. Approximately 84,000 paradigms are ordered around the perimeter of a circle (for visualization purposes).

The model can also be used to identify areas where an institution is a research leader. Researchers at an institution tend to focus their work within a unique set of related paradigms. For any given institution, these paradigms form natural clusters that are based on the networks within the institution. These clusters formulate the unique core competencies or “distinctive competencies (DCs)” of the institution (see Figure 2 overleaf). These are the areas in which the institution is a research leader. One of the unique features of this method is that it can identify those distinctive competencies within an institution that are highly multidisciplinary. Research output mapped toward the center of the circle indicates that it is multidisciplinary and output mapped closer to the perimeter denotes more field-specific work.

page_2

Math / Physics Chem

istry Engineering Earth Biology Bi Tech Inf. Disease

M

edical Spec

H

ealth

Svc

Bra

in

H S

ocia

l Scie

nces

CompSci/ElectEng

84k paradigms

page_13

Summary

While the U.S. has the greatest number of institutions ranked

in the top 25 based on alternative energy papers in distinctive

competencies and is the most prolific in all of the topic groups, the

only area in which it has an overwhelming leadership position is

in environmentally-related research.

In fuel cells and solar/photovoltaic, U.S. leadership is much more diffused with Germany, and to a lesser extent China, emerging as significant players in these two groups. In fact, while Germany’s total number of papers remains lower than the U.S., its percent of papers in distinctive competencies in both solar/photovoltaic and fuel cells is higher. This indicates Germany is at minimum a formidable competitor and possibly an emerging leader in these areas (particularly in solar/photovoltaic where Germany has 335 papers in DCs and the U.S. has 454).

It is also interesting to note that fuel cell research worldwide is much less likely to be conducted in depth with less than a third of total papers (29.7%) in this topic group falling into distinctive competencies as compared to 48.9% of worldwide solar/photovoltaic research. This may signal that countries in general view solar/photovoltaic research in a much more strategic manner than they do fuel cell research and are supporting this research in a way that leads to core competencies in institutions rather than isolated research. At the same time, an even smaller percent (27%) of environmentally-related research is conducted in distinctive competencies.

Digging beyond total paper counts and breaking out of the traditional discipline boundaries, output in distinctive competencies reveals the degree to which institutions have constructed sub-disciplinary or cross-disciplinary networks within their organization, focused on achieving specific breakthroughs. Measuring output by distinctive competencies more accurately reflects the reality of today’s multidisciplinary scientific landscape, offering a more precise way of determining leadership.


page_3

Distinctive Competencies (DCs)

Figure 2. Sample map visually illustrating a university’s distinctive competencies (DCs) within the Circle of Science (see Figure 1 overleaf). The DC highlighted incorporates work from several disciplines including medicine (noted in red), chemistry (noted in blue) and biotechnology (noted in green).

* Please note that when a country has 0% of its papers in DCs it does not indicate they are not publishing papers in the area, but that they are being developed as isolated pieces rather than part of a larger effort.

New Methodology Uncovers Hidden Leadership – Germany Revealed

The methodology illustrated overleaf can be used at a national

level in addition to being used at the institution level. Figure 7

shows the results of an analysis of German competencies using

the Spotlight methodology. The Figure indicates a highly diverse

set of research strengths in Germany.

It identifies many distinctive competencies in areas associated with physics, chemistry, and engineering, where much of their alternative energy work is being conducted. On an institutional level, for example, Germany’s Helmholtz Centre Berlin for Materials and Energy is a leader in solar /photovoltaic research.

Although the U.S. is the most prolific across all three topic groups, Germany is ahead of the U.S. in solar/photovoltaic research with respect to the percentage of papers published in its distinctive competencies. As mentioned earlier, this

indicates significant depth to the work being conducted making it a leader in this area.

In fact, Germany’s total number of papers from all three topic groups is 538 with 467.8 of them published within their DCs, resulting in the country ranking first in all three energy research groupings when measured by the percentage of research in distinctive competencies. This may indicate that Germany has a much more coherent and institutionally focused alternative energy policy as compared to other countries, which makes them a formidable competitor and unrecognized leader. In contrast, Japan’s total number of papers in the three groupings is 1202.31 with only 242.7 of those published in DCs. This substantiates the idea that Japan is opting for breadth over depth in its alternative energy research approach. Again, work in breadth is not necessarily of lesser quality, however major advances tend to come from depth which is indicated by research performed in an institution’s distinctive competencies.

page_12

Figure 7: Mapping Germany’s Research Strengths


This proof-of-principle study identifies institutions that are research

leaders in alternative energy-related science using the SciVal

Spotlight tool. At the time the study analysis was conducted, an

institution needed to have at least 100 Scopus-indexed papers

per year to be included in the SciVal Spotlight tool. In addition, at

the time of the study, only academic institutions, along with a few

government laboratories, had been coded. The analysis was thus

limited to these institutions.

To be considered an alternative energy research leader in the study, an institution first must have substantial activity and impact (i.e. there needs to be a lot of quality research) in the topics associated with alternative energy research. Second, the alternative-energy related work must appear as part of an institution’s distinctive competencies. If the energy-related work does not appear as part of a distinctive competency that does not mean that it is not good work, but rather that it is isolated and not part of a larger network of activity.

Following are the specific steps used to identify the leading institutions (primarily universities) in alternative energy-related research:

Step 1: Starting with the 84,000 overall research paradigms, specific search terms were used to identify those that are alternative energy-related. The search terms were culled from various websites dealing with alternative energy, including the White House energy page from the previous Bush administration and the energy-related platform for the current Obama administration. The list of terms used included those illustrated in the table below.

page_4

Alternative energy search terms

biodieselbiofuelbiomass energybiomass burnbiomass pyrolysisbioenergycellulosic ethanol

energy securityenergy efficiencyclean technologyhybrid carhybrid automobilefuel economylighting efficiencyappliance efficiency

co-generationgeothermal energygeothermal powerhydroelectric power hydroelectric energyocean thermal

fuel cellnuclear energynuclear power

alternative fuelalternative energyrenewable fuelrenewable energy

solar cellsolar energysolar powersolar installationphotovoltaic

wind energywind poweroffshore wind

clean coalclean carboncarbon capturecarbon sequestration

Study Methodology


Figure 6*. Country and region statistics in environmentally-related energy research based on the published output of the top 25 ranked institutions (as listed in Figure 3).

Country Number of Institutions in the Top 25

Total Papers Papers in DCs

% in DCs

United States 17 1997 797 39.9%

China 2 425 75 17.7%

Japan 1 216 0%

S. Korea 1 164 0%

Canada 1 130 0%

Hong Kong 1 94 25 26.9%

Switzerland 1 84 0%

Taiwan 72 0%

Netherlands 1 69 0%

Singapore 45 0%

Italy 44 0%

Great Britian 44 0%

Germany 23 23 100%

North America 18 2127 797 37.5%

Asia 5 1016 100 9.9%

Europe 2 264 23 8.6%

TOTAL 3407 920 27%

Environmentally-Related Energy Research Leadership

North America, led by the U.S., dominates in environmentally

-related alternative energy research. The U.S. has close to 2000

total papers in this topic group. While less than half (40%) of U.S.

papers are in distinctive competencies, the only other country

with any meaningful portion of its research in DCs is Hong

Kong at 26.9% and China at 17.7%. However, the total output

of these countries is significantly lower (93.9 and 424.6 papers

respectively) putting them well behind the U.S. in terms

of leadership.

This suggests that research into energy efficiency, security, and biomass related science has a low strategic priority in most of the world compared to research based in physics and chemistry. An interesting hypothesis is that because the U.S. consumes the largest percentage of the world’s natural resources, it also takes more responsibility in making breakthroughs in this area. Studies have shown that countries with a lower gross domestic product (GDP) perform more research in the physical sciences, but research tends to shift toward the social sciences (quality of life issues) as GDP increases.

page_11

Figure 6*. Country and region statistics in environmentally-related energy research based on the published output of the top 25 ranked institutions (as listed in Figure 3).


Approximately 1,100 energy-related paradigms were identified in which one or more of these terms were highly ranked. These terms were then grouped into 16 topic areas as follows: fuel cell, solar/PV, biodiesel, biofuel, cogeneration, clean coal, efficiency, renewable, biomass, nuclear, wind, carbon, bioenergy, energy security, hydroelectric, and geothermal. Each paradigm was then labelled with one of these 16 topic areas. These topic areas were then grouped into three equally distributed topic groups as follows:

Topic Group 1: Solar/Photovoltaic

Topic Group 2: Fuel Cells

Topic Group 3: Environmentally-related (efficiency + renewable + biomass + biodiesel + biofuel + nuclear + wind + cogeneration + clean coal + carbon + bioenergy + security + hydroelectric + geothermal).

Step 2: A list was developed including over 3,000 institutions from around the world, most of which are universities and some of which are government laboratories. The list was built using the SciVal Spotlight tool, which did not include industrial/commercial institutions or institutions with an industrial component at the time the analysis was conducted.

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the tool only included institutions that publish more than 100 research papers per year (on any topic) as indexed by Scopus. Using only the 1,100 paradigms from the three topic groups listed above (solar/PV, fuel cells, environmentally-related) the numbers of alternative energy research papers for each institution were counted and the institutions were ranked according to output. The top 50 institutions were then taken for further analysis around country and region output in each of the three topic groups.

Step 3: Distinctive competencies for each of the top 50 institutions on the list were identified using the SciVal Spotlight tool. The number of alternative energy related papers that were in distinctive competencies for each university/laboratory were then counted to identify alternative energy leaders.

Step 4: The information from the top 50 institutions was aggregated by country and region to generate country and region-specific findings regarding leaders in each of the three alternative energy topic groups.

page_5

Figure 5*. Country and region statistics in fuel cell research based on the published output of the top 25 ranked institutions (as listed in Figure 3).




% in DCs

United States 6 1006 377 37.5%

China 5 574 157 27.4%

Japan 6 531 94 17.7%

S. Korea 2 296 76 25.6%

Canada 2 220 66 30.1%

Germany 1 145 110 75.9%

Great Britain 1 95 25 26.5%

Netherlands 1 88 25 28.6%

Taiwan 86 0%

Singapore 1 76 31 41.3%

Italy 57 0%

Switzerland 49 0%

Hong Kong 18 0%

Asia 14 1581 358 22.7%

North America 8 1226 443 36.2%

Europe 3 435 161 37%

TOTAL 3242 962 29.7%

Fuel Cell Research Leadership

While North America produces significantly more papers than

Europe (1225.9 vs. 434.8 respectively), they are about equally

as effective at placing their fuel cell research within distinctive

competencies at 37% and 36.2% respectively. Asia once again

has the largest volume of papers, but the smallest percent

in DCs at 22.7%.

The U.S. leads this topic group with over 1000 total papers as well as the largest number of papers in DCs at 377. However, when it comes to the percent of papers in DCs, Germany is the clear leader at 75.9%. Japan’s performance is surprising in this area as it ranks third in total papers with over 500, but ninth in percent of papers in DCs at 17.7%.

page_10


Ranking the Alternative Energy Leaders – Surprising Findings at the Institutional Level

Distinctive competencies (DCs) represent expertise in specific

research areas. They reveal the degree to which institutions have

constructed multidisciplinary networks within their organization

focused on achieving specific breakthroughs. Indicating that

research within the university is not being done in isolated silos,

examining output in distinctive competencies offers a more

accurate way of determining leadership in a given area

compared to traditional measurement methods.

The study shows how distinctive competencies should be taken into account when one identifies research leadership in a specific field such as alternative energy. Using DCs, one can identify institutions with core competencies in alternative energy, as well as the related topics (or complementary research capabilities) that make the alternative energy research at particular institutions highly unique and valuable.

The top ranked institutions in the study based on the total number of alternative energy research papers produced in distinctive competencies are listed in Figure 3 overleaf. The chart also includes the number of papers published in distinctive competencies within each of the three alternative energy topic groups.

There is a common misperception that the most significant alternative energy-related research is being conducted at only a handful of top-ranked well known institutions. Looking beyond total paper counts affirms that there are institutional leaders in various areas within the alternative energy umbrella within all levels of the university rankings. Examining distinctive competencies shines a light on overlooked output, revealing interesting findings and exposing unrecognized leaders.

Nine U.S. institutes are included among the top 25 with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center ranking number one. NASA Goddard is renowned for its solar work, yet it ranks first in environmentally-related research in the study. It achieves this ranking in large part because of its biomass work which centers on the environmental effects of burning biomass fuels, as opposed to research on the use of biomass as a fuel or energy source. While some countries view particular alternative energy topics from an energy standpoint, others look at those same topics from an environmental perspective – this suggests a strong link between energy and climate research.

Other surprising findings from the study include the fact that the UK has only one institute ranked in the top 25, the Imperial College of London. In fact, this university placed fourteenth behind eight institutes from the U.S., two from Germany, two from China, and one from Japan suggesting that the UK may be lagging behind its major competitors in alternative energy research.

page_6

Figure 4*. Country and region statistics in solar/photovoltaic research based on the published output of the top 25 ranked institutions (as listed in Figure 3).



% in DCs

United States 8 893 454 50.8%

Japan 5 455 149 32.7%

Germany 2 370 335 90.5%

China 4 246 58 23.7%

Taiwan 2 135 61 45.5%

Great Britain 1 117 53 45.5%

Netherlands 1 79 44 56.0%

S. Korea 76 0%

Italy 1 68 21 31.1%

Switzerland 1 53 46 85.8%

Singapore 38 32 84.7%

Canada 20 0%

Hong Kong 13 0%

Asia 14 963 301 31.2%

North America 8 913 454 49.7%

Europe 3 688 499 72.6%

TOTAL 2564 1254 48.9%

Solar/Photovoltaic Research Leadership

While Europe has the smallest number of total papers in solar

/photovoltaic research (687.6 total papers), it is the most effective

at placing that research within distinctive competencies (499.2

papers in DCs representing 72.6% of its research in this topic

group). By contrast, Asia has the largest number of total papers,

but the smallest percent of papers in DCs (31.2%). Trailing closely

behind Asia in total number of papers, North America (913.3) has

somewhat greater depth with just under half (49.7%) of its solar

/photovoltaic research in DCs.

From a national perspective, Germany is a prime example of a country that is focused on depth. While Germany ranks third in total papers (369.9) published in this topic group, the majority (90.5%) of its research is in distinctive competencies. This indicates a leadership role for the country. Although Switzerland and Singapore do not produce a significant number of total papers (53.3 and 38.3 respectively), both publish over 80% of them in DCs. On the other side of the spectrum, China publishes more work in breadth than depth, producing 246.1 papers with only 24% in DCs.

page_9



Drilling Down – A Geographic and Topic Group Perspective

The information from the top 50 institutions was aggregated by

country and region to identify worldwide geographic trends in

each of the three topic groups within alternative energy research.

Summary statistics by country and region were generated for

each of the topic groups which are shown overleaf in Figure 4

for solar/photovoltaic and Figure 5 for fuel cells, and on page 11,

Figure 6 for environmentally-related.

Data for each country and region is solely based on the aggregated research output of the top 50 institutions (as ranked in Figure 3) and includes total papers published in the topic group, number of papers published in distinctive competencies (DCs), and percent of papers in DCs. The total number of papers published indicates the combined breadth and depth of research conducted by the top-ranked institutions in each country, whereas the number and percentage of those papers published in distinctive competencies indicates how much of the overall research is in areas where the institutions have depth.

It is natural that all institutions, and therefore the countries and regions in which they are located, have areas of breadth and depth. The typical publication ratio for an institution is approximately four parts breadth to one part depth. Breadth indicates that an institution is examining numerous approaches to achieving scientific breakthroughs, whereas depth (published content in DCs) suggests a more cohesive approach in which larger networks of researchers within the institution are focused on the same research goals.

page_8

Figure 3. Top 25 institutions (primarily universities) ranked by total number of alternative energy papers produced in distinctive competencies (DCs).

Institution Country Total # of alternative energy papers in DC

Solar/photovoltaic papers in DCs

Fuel Cell papers in DCs

Environmentally Related papers in DCs

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center United States 309 96 213

National Renewable Energy Laboratory United States 271 221 20 30

Helmholtz Centre Berlin for Materials and Energy Germany 240 240

Forschungszentrum Julich Germany 234 94 110 30

Pennsylvania State University United States 168 37 131

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration United States 121 121

University of California at Irvine United States 101 101

Osaka University Japan 97 97

California Institute of Technology United States 97 25 71

Harvard University United States 84 84

Tsinghua University China 83 28 26 29

Shanghai Jiaotong University China 81 31 50

University of Colorado United States 80 80

Imperial College London Great Britain 79 53 25

Tohoku University Japan 71 71

Eindhoven University of Technology Netherlands 69 44 25

National Research Council of Canada Canada 66 66

Nanyang Technological University Singapore 64 32 31

National Cheng Kung University Taiwan 61 61

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign United States 61 61

Korea Institute of Science and Technology Korea 54

University of Science and Technology of China China 54

Massachusetts Institute of Technology United States 53

Los Alamos National Laboratory United States 52

Kyoto University Japan 52

page_7


alternative energy study

Documents

alternative energy research

multidisciplinary research

alternative energy sources

energy needs

carbonbased energy sources

multidisciplinary perspective

multidisciplinary landscape

customer service1