Information accessibility and knowledge creation: the impact of Google's withdrawal from China on scientific research

被引:1
作者
Hussinger, Katrin [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Palladini, Lorenzo [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Luxembourg, Dept Econ & Management, Esch Sur Alzette, Luxembourg
[2] Dept Management Strategy & Innovat, Leuven, Belgium
[3] Ctr European Econ Res ZEW, Econ innovat & Ind dynam, Mannheim, Germany
[4] Univ Luxembourg, 6 Rue Richard Coudehove-Kalergi, L-1359 Esch Sur Alzette, Luxembourg
关键词
Information accessibility; academic publications; knowledge production; Google; China; D83; I23; ECONOMICS; SEARCH; CITATIONS; PRODUCTIVITY; DIFFUSION; BUSINESS; JOURNALS; SCIENCE; QUALITY; SCOPUS;
D O I
10.1080/13662716.2023.2298293
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
How important is Google for scientific research? This paper exploits the exogenous shock represented by Google's sudden withdrawal of its services from mainland China to assess the importance of access to information for the knowledge production function of scientific scholars in the field of economics. For economists, a type of scholar with a simple knowledge production function, results from difference-in-difference analyses, which compare their scientific output to scholars located in the neighbouring regions, show that the scientific productivity declines by about 28% in volume and 30% in terms of citations. These results are consistent with the view that information accessibility is an important driver of scientific progress. Considering that the negative effect of the shock is stronger for top scholars located in China, Google's sudden exit bears the risk that researchers lose touch with the research frontier and persistently lag behind their foreign peers.
引用
收藏
页码:753 / 783
页数:31
相关论文
共 98 条
[1]   Restructuring Research: Communication Costs and the Democratization of University Innovation [J].
Agrawal, Ajay ;
Goldfarb, Avi .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2008, 98 (04) :1578-1590
[2]   A Criteria-based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science [J].
Aksnes, Dag W. ;
Sivertsen, Gunnar .
JOURNAL OF DATA AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, 2019, 4 (01) :1-21
[3]   What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice [J].
Allen, Heidi ;
Cury, Alexandra ;
Gaston, Thomas ;
Graf, Chris ;
Wakley, Hannah ;
Willis, Michael .
LEARNED PUBLISHING, 2019, 32 (02) :163-175
[4]   Synthetic Difference-in-Differences [J].
Arkhangelsky, Dmitry ;
Athey, Susan ;
Hirshberg, David A. ;
Imbens, Guido W. ;
Wager, Stefan .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2021, 111 (12) :4088-4118
[5]   Paradise of Novelty-Or Loss of Human Capital? Exploring New Fields and Inventive Output [J].
Arts, Sam ;
Fleming, Lee .
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 2018, 29 (06) :1074-1092
[6]   The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: Can it be beneficial? [J].
Azar, Ofer H. .
ECONOMIC INQUIRY, 2007, 45 (01) :179-187
[7]   Retractions [J].
Azoulay, Pierre ;
Furman, Jeffrey L. ;
Krieger, Joshua L. ;
Murray, Fiona .
REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, 2015, 97 (05) :1118-1136
[8]   Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies [J].
Baas, Jeroen ;
Schotten, Michiel ;
Plume, Andrew ;
Cote, Gregoire ;
Karimi, Reza .
QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE STUDIES, 2020, 1 (01) :377-386
[9]  
Beaver D. deB., 1978, Scientometrics, V1, P65, DOI 10.1007/BF02016840
[10]  
Berkes E., 2019, 2019 M PAPERS NO 131