Bibliometric Analysis of the Research Performance of the JRC Under the Euratom Research and Training Programme (2007-2015)

Bibliometric analysis of the research performance of the JRC under the Euratom Research and Training Programme (2007-2015)

Penultimate draft

Authors: Koen Jonkers, Juan Carlos Del Rio

2016

Table of Contents Foreword ...... 2 Acknowledgments ...... 3 Executive summary ...... 4 1. Introduction ...... 6 2. Methodological reflections...... 8 2.1 Field definition ...... 8 2.2 Normalising name variants ...... 9 2.3 Time frame ...... 9 2.4 Comparator organisations ...... 9 2.5 Reported metrics and research performance indicators ...... 11 3. Production of (high-impact) publications in Nuclear Science and Technology research 12 3.1 Task description ...... 12 3.2 Methodology...... 12 3.3 Results ...... 13 3.3.1 Analysis of the percentage of highly cited JRC publications per year ...... 13 3.3.2 Comparison of the JRC NST performance with Group 1 comparator organisations .. 17 3.3.3 Comparison of the JRC NST performance with Group 2 comparator organisations .. 21 4. Discussion and conclusions ...... 25 Literature References ...... 27 List of Figures ...... 28 List of Tables ...... 29 Annex 1 – Journal based Subfield categories ...... 30 Annex 2 - Annual Evolution of publication output for the comparator organisations ...... 32 Annex 3 – Top 10 most highly cited JRC NST publications ...... 33 Annex 4 – Description of comparator organisations ...... 40 Group 1 comparators ...... 41 Group 2 comparators ...... 55 Annex 5 – JRC and comparators for all nuclear research fields ...... 65

Foreword

This report was requested in support of an interim evaluation of the JRC nuclear activities under the Euratom Research and Training Programme to be carried out with the assistance of independent experts by 31 May 2017. The current version of the report is a pen-ultimate draft which still requires registration in PUBSY. It was decided to submit it in this form to allow for potential further fine-tuning in the light of comments, if any, from the independent experts

Acknowledgments Support in the data collection was provided by Juan Carlos del Rio and Peter Fako. Juan Carlos del Rio also drafted the annexes. Peter Fako conducted the analysis for table 4. Said Abousahl provided input / validation for the selection of comparator organisations in the field of Nuclear Science and Technology. The report has benefited from internal reviews and comments by Pieter van Nes, Athina Karvounaraki and Xabier Goenaga. In order to check for appropriateness, quality and consistency of the analysis an outside bibliometric expert was contracted: Professor Robert Tijssen of the Centre for Science and Technology Studies of Leiden University. He validated the methodology, reviewed the document and provided additional input during a meeting in Brussels.

Executive summary

This report provides a bibliometric assessment of the JRC's Nuclear Science and Technology (NST) research activities. It complements a report drafted by Thomson Reuters used as an input for the expert evaluation of JRC research performance under FP7. The current report aims to inform the review of the JRC's activities in this field by a panel of independent experts in the framework of an interim evaluation of the JRC nuclear activities under the Euratom Research and Training Programme. The report deploys widely accepted publication and citation based impact metrics to analyse the JRC's output and scientific impact in this field. These metrics are derived from Thomson Reuter's InCites platform. The JRC produces 1,023 publications in the broad nuclear research field. This analysis focuses on the 774 publications that are made in the subfield of Nuclear Science and Technology. This subfield is considered representative for JRC nuclear research activities. In terms of scientific NST publication output, the JRC is a medium sized actor. The JRC produces roughly 50 % more highly cited publications than the world average. In terms of normalised impact (SNCI) it is at the world average, which implies that a considerable share of JRC publications is cited below the world average. Further analysis of the JRC NST publication output reveals that around 70 % of the high- impact publications are the result of international co-publications. In almost 50 % of the high-impact JRC NST publications, a JRC researcher is the corresponding author. This indicates that high-impact JRC NST publications are to a significant extent the outcome of substantial JRC research activities. The report also compares the JRC publication output and impact with organisations active in nuclear research. The reader will find information for all 20 organisations in the report. The discussion focuses on organisations which share important elements of the nature of the JRC and have both a comparable size and a comparable share of NST activities in their total publication portfolio. The JRC’s share of highly cited publications compares well to the world average and the comparator organisations. The Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland and the VTT in Finland have a similar share of top 10 % most highly cited publications at a rate significantly (around 50 %) above the world average. Their Normalised Citation Impact is around 10-15 percentage points above the JRC score. In the United States Argonne National Lab and the Los Alamos National Laboratory produce a similar number of NST publications with a high scientific impact as the JRC.

1. Introduction The Seventh Framework programme for Research and Technological Development 2007- 2013 (FP7) represented a substantial investment and commitment by the European Commission (EC) to meet one of its top policy aim of enhancing and improving research in Europe. As the European Commission's science and knowledge service, the Joint Research Centre's mission is part of the Framework "to support EU policies with independent evidence throughout the whole policy cycle. Its work has a direct impact on the lives of citizens by contributing with its research outcomes to a healthy and safe environment, secure energy supplies, sustainable mobility and consumer health and safety." In 2014, the JRC proceeded with an evaluation of its research performance as part of a broader effort by the EC to evaluate and monitor the outcome of the FP7. For this purpose Thomson Reuters, an international media conglomerate and data provider prepared a data analytical report1 answering a list of open questions that were designed to measure the quantity and quality of JRC research outputs. Traditional ‘bibliometric’ data (i.e. publication counts, scientific references to publications (‘citations’), and author affiliations) were extracted and complemented with measures of scientific impact to provide a clearer picture of the international comparative state of research at the JRC. Designed to address the full spectrum of JRC activities, Thomson Reuters' assessment did not provide detailed information on the output and impact of JRC research in the field of Nuclear Science and Technology (NST). The ex post FP7 evaluation report noticed this lack of detail. Therefore the current account is required in support of the interim evaluation of the JRC nuclear activities under the Euratom Research and Training Programme to be carried out with the assistance of independent experts by 31 May 2017. In the nuclear field the JRCs mission is to carry out the Commission's research and training tasks as foreseen under the Treaty on the European Community for Atomic Energy (Euratom) signed in 1957. Article 4 of this Treaty made the Commission responsible “for promoting and facilitating nuclear research in the Member States and complementing it by carrying out a Community research and training programme”, whilst Article 8 foresaw the establishment of a Joint Nuclear Research Centre (JRC). Against this background the current document provides an update of the Thomson Reuters’ report to supplement the general bibliometric analysis with a focus on the NST part of JRC’s research activities. Our approach, methodology, metrics and performance indicators is aligned as much as possible to the approach used by Thomson Reuters in its 2014 report. A total of 6954 publications from the JRC were identified within Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science database2 (WoS) for the publication years 2007- 2015. Precisely 774 (11 %) of these JRC publications were made in the field of Nuclear Science and Technology. This is the core dataset of this report.3 4 A corresponding set of publications for two groups of

1 Evaluation of the Research Performance of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission during the 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013). Thomson Reuter, 2014 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/thompson-reuters-study-2007-2013.pdf 2 The full name of the Web of Science database is the Web of Science Core Collection database, which comprises other publication databases (Conference Proceedings, Books). The WoS database used for this analysis is restricted to some 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific and technical journals included in the Science Citation Index – Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index. Thomson Reuters’ data analytical platform InCItes, covers basically the same set of journals. 3 To understand how representative SCI publications are for JRC publication productivity we explore the records kept of JRC publication output as presented in the PRIME report. Across all fields, Web of Science publications represent 61 % of all JRC publications. Scopus has a somewhat broader coverage as 4 % of JRC publications are covered in Scopus and not in Web of Science. Other articles contributed to books or periodicals comprise another 32 % of publications which are not covered by these two main databases. Monographs and books represent 2 % and PhD theses another 1 % of JRC publication output (JRC Productivity and Impact

comparator organisations were extracted for this time-period to benchmark the JRC research performance in NST. One of the core principles outlined in the methodological guidelines of the Leiden Manifesto (Hicks et al., 2015) is to measure performance of a research organisation against its research missions. The current report is limited to a bibliometric analysis of the scientific output and scientific impact of the JRC's publications in the field of nuclear science and technological research. It aims to inform a qualitative expert peer assessment of the JRC's general performance in the field of nuclear research, by analysing the output and scientific impact of JRC publications as measured through cross references (‘citations’) from one publication to another within the WoS.

Report, Results from PRIME 2015, Ref. Ares(2016)2889992 - 22/06/2016). This provides some indication of the relative representativeness of the Web of Science database. Researchers in the NST field may be more or less prone than those in other fields to make publications in journals contained in this database rather than other outlets. However, most, and probably all, highly cited peer reviewed publications will have been made in WoS indexed journals. 4 There are also other nuclear research related publications which are not contained in the NST field, but instead in e.g. Nuclear Physics. As explained in annex 4 we decided, in consultation with the outside bibliometric expert, not to include this category because it was less representative of JRC activity than the NST subfield. As a consequence 166 nuclear research articles were not taken into account in the assessment in the 2007-2015 time period. A check was made to ensure these publications did not significantly outperform or underperform the NST publications on the impact indicators under consideration.

2. Methodological reflections This section discusses the overarching methodological choices that were made and explains where this analytical report differs from the previous document prepared by the data producer, Thomson Reuters, in 2014.5 In general most methodological choices were made in order to produce a report that is similar and comparable to the report produced by Thomson Reuters. To this end the analysts used Thomson Reuters' platform InCites™, which produces publication metrics and citation indicators on the basis of the WoS database.

2.1 Field definition In this database we selected WoS journal-based subject areas or Journal Subject Categories (from here on simply referred to as ‘subfields’), rather than selecting one of the alternative potential journal based subfield categories compiled by the OECD or other organisations. This approach was followed also by Thomson Reuters in their 2014 report and its subfield classification system has long been an accepted international standard. We refrained from compiling our own custom-made subfield classification system, which might have yielded a more complete coverage of JRC activities, in order to ensure comparability with the Thomson Reuters report and facilitate the reproducibility of the results. Among the four WoS subfields, only one was deemed to correspond closely to the JRC’s NST activities, namely the subfield 'Nuclear Science and Technology'.6 Annex 1 provides the list of WoS-indexed journals that make up this category. There are also other JRC Nuclear research related publications which are not contained in the NST field, but instead in the subfields of "Physics, Nuclear"; "Chemistry, Inorganic & Nuclear" and "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging". Taken into account all these fields combined (without double counting) would increase the number of JRC publications from 774 to 1023 publications: an increase of +32 %. The decision not to include a combined nuclear research field with all four categories together was that JRC publications in the latter fields are more peripheral than in the NST field. By including fields, one would have compared a somewhat larger JRC output with a much larger 'universe of publications'. As shown in Annex 5, the aforementioned 32 % increase in the measured JRC output is small in comparison to the growth in measured output for other organisations. For example the output of the CNRS increases 5 fold when considering all these fields together. Because the NST subfield was deemed more representative of JRC activity than the combined field a decision was made to focus on this field. A check was made to ensure that the JRC publications in the other fields did not perform differently in terms of the impact metrics than the NST publications.

5 Evaluation of the Research Performance of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission during the 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013). Thomson Reuter, 2014 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/thompson-reuters-study-2007-2013.pdf 6 As highlighted by an expert on JRC nuclear research, two of the 33 journals in the NST subfield deal exclusively with fusion research, an area in which the JRC is not allowed to develop activities. Considering the (reportedly) relatively large share of Euratom funding devoted to fusion research, this area of the NST subfield might be a relatively hot topic producing a relatively large share of research publications. The ‘journal impact factors’ of the two exclusive nuclear fusion research journals are ranked 6 and 22 out of 32. I.e. research publications in one of the journals received a relatively high number of citations on average, whereas the publications in the other receive a lower level of citations. While allowing for the possibility that fusion research is also published in some of the other journals in this subfield, the inclusion of these two dedicated journals is not likely to have disadvantaged the JRC relative performance in terms of citation impact.

2.2 Normalising name variants In consultation with Thomson Reuters’ InCites team, a few minor improvements were made in the classification of the organisation name variants of JRC as they appear in the author addresses on WoS-indexed research publications. These minor adaptations will not have had a major effect on the analyses carried out by Thomson Reuters in 2014, though they might result in statistically significant fluctuations in small subfields. They do not affect calculations in the NST field. For the comparator organisations which we will discuss in the next section, we have chosen organisations for which Thomson Reuters has also carried out a process of name harmonisation. The organisations are thus treated alike to enable an accurate comparison.

2.3 Time frame One of the most significant differences of the current report compared to the Thomson Reuter report is that the analysis goes up to the year 20157. The reason for this is that the envisaged interim-evaluation covers activities during the first part of the five-year Euratom programme (2014-2018). Since an analysis of the publication data over a two- year period is not particularly meaningful, we decided to provide an analysis covering FP7 (2007-2013) and the first part of the Euratom complement to Horizon 2020 (2014 and 2015).

2.4 Comparator organisations Comparator Group 1 (12 external organisations) For the selection of comparator organisations this report takes a two-step approach. First it takes the 16 organisations8 identified by Thomson Reuters and compares JRC performance in Nuclear Science and Technology publications with these organisations in order to ensure comparability between the current report and its predecessor. Some of the organisations identified by Thomson Reuters, however, may not be the most suitable comparators for JRC activities in the nuclear field. First of all, several are not particular active in research in the NST research area. Second, the nature of these organisations is often quite different from the JRC9. The Thomson Reuters group of comparators includes some of the major research universities which apart from having substantial resources for (more or less) fundamental research also have an important teaching / training function. The JRC also has a training role, e.g. in training nuclear inspectors from the Member States. However, training is less at the core of its activities as in the case of universities. These universities may play a role in "supporting policymakers with independent evidence throughout the whole policy cycle", but this is not their core objective. The same could be said for large Public Research Organisations such as the Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG) (Germany), the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) (Italy) and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) (France).10 These organisations tend to be focused more on basic research and have a different relation to policy making bodies then the JRC has. Several of these organisations do have considerable nuclear research activities in their large all-encompassing research portfolios as is evident from their publication output (see table 5). Both types of organisations (universities and public research centres focused on basic science) are not overlooked as they form part of this first set of comparators.

7 The time-frame applied within the Thomson Reuters study did not extend beyond 2013. 8 CIEMAT and the FTB had not been standardised in InCites and were therefore excluded. 9 As the European Commission's science and knowledge service, the Joint Research Centre's mission is to support EU policies with independent evidence throughout the whole policy cycle. 10 Cruz Castro, Bleda, Jonkers, Derrick, Martinez, Sanz Menendez, (2011) OECD IPP actor brief, public research organisations

Comparator Group 2 (9 external organisations) In order to identify a complimentary set of comparator organisations for JRC activities in NST a first step is to identify the public research organisations that publish a large number of articles in this subfield. These organisations were classified as being either ‘Public Research Organisations (PRO)’ 11 or ‘Universities’. A second step in the identification of comparator organisations was to select those organisations that were expected to be relatively similar to the nuclear part of JRC in terms of their mission and regarding the type of research they carried out. An explicit objective was not to limit these comparator organisations to those located in EU member states, but to also include some organisations from the US and other third countries. The list has been validated by the Head of Unit responsible for coordinating JRC Euratom research activities. Table 1 Group 1 and Group 2 comparator organisations12 Group 1 Group 2

Joint Research Centre Joint Research Centre

Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA) (France) alternatives (CEA)(France)

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Japan Atomic Energy Agency (Japan) (France)

Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG)(Germany) Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (India)

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (US) Chinese Academy of Sciences (China)

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) (US) Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (Germany)

Consiglio Nazionale di Ricerche (CNR) (Italy) Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)

VTT Technical Research Centre Finland (VTT) Paul Scherrer Institute (Switzerland) (Finland)

University of Oxford (OX) (UK) Jülich Research Centre (Germany)

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (US) (USA)

National Physical Laboratory (NPL) (UK)

University of Cambridge (UC) (UK)

Austrian Research Centre (AIT / ARC)

Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (FhG)

Netherlands Organisation for applied research (TNO)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) USA.

The list of selected comparator organisations is provided in Table 1. The overlap between groups 1 and 2 is restricted to the JRC and the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA) (France). A choice was made not to include the US Department of Energy (DoE) National Laboratory system as a whole because of its (much) greater size and broader scope of research, but rather to focus on individual US

11 Public Research Organisations refer to a broad range of research performing organisations that are more and less public in nature. Apart from having basic or applied research as their main mission, a defining characteristic is that they receive a large share of their resources from public sources. i.e. even if the Max Planck Society is an independent foundation it is still considered a PRO, because most of its funding comes from public sources. 12 As explained in section 3.3.2 The organisations in grey will be discarded as they do not have a NST publication productivity of sufficiently meaningful size.

National Labs active in the NST field. Group 1 already included two other US National Laboratories. 13 Annex 2 provides a descriptive overview of the different research organisations comprising the comparator groups 1 and the complementary group 2. 2.5 Reported metrics and research performance indicators14 Number of publications: this metric 15 refers to the number of publications (co- )authored by the JRC or comparator organisations in the field of nuclear science and technology.16 Number of highly cited publications refers to those publications which fell within the top 10 % of most highly cited publications per subfield made worldwide.17 Share of highly cited publications refers to the share (%) of JRC publications in the field of nuclear science and technology which fell within the top 10 % of most highly cited publications made worldwide. Subfield Normalised Citation Impact is “the Citation impact (citations per paper) normalised for subject, year and document type.” It allows comparisons between entities of different sizes. We consider only a single subfield, but it is nonetheless important to normalise the citations received by NST publications relative to the average of publications in this particular field rather than the whole worldwide publication set. “An SNCI value of one represents performance at par with world average, values above one are considered above average and values below one are considered below average. An NCI value of two is considered twice world average.”

13 An attempt was made to also include the Studiecentrum voor kernenergie or Centre d'étude de l'énergie nucléaire CEN/SKC in Belgium. Unfortunately the CEN/SKC organisation’s name variants are not yet fully harmonised in Thomson Reuters’ WoS-based InCites platform on which this analysis is based. While it would be possible to select its publications directly from the underpinning WoS database, the lack of name normalisation would make these results less comparable to those of the JRC and the other comparators. A first data collection exercise on this organisation also suggested that its scientific productivity is about 20% of the size of that of the JRC. It was therefore deemed better to focus on the larger organisations already identified. 14 The definitions of these indicators is derived from the InCites Indicator handbook: http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/indicators-handbook.pdf 15 A ‘metric’ is a measurement or a measurement scale related to a specific observable phenomenon, whereas an ‘indicator’ is usually defined as a (composite) ‘proxy’ score that reflects a higher-level or more abstract phenomenon. 16 InCites uses absolute counting to calculate this metric. This means that a publication which is co-authored by two (or more) organisations is counted as '1' publication for each organisation. 17 The definition of highly cited publication used in this report follows international common practice (e.g. Hicks et al., 2015) and diverges from the indicator used in the Thomson Reuter report where they take publications with a Normalised Citation Impact larger than 4.

3. Production of (high-impact) publications in Nuclear Science and Technology research 3.1 Task description Research question: how many publications and highly cited publications has the JRC published and how does the JRC compare to the world and the comparator organisations in terms of publication output, output of highly cited publications (top 10 % most-cited), growth and normalised citation impact in the field of nuclear science and technology? 3.2 Methodology In line with the 2014 report by Thomson Reuters, we followed the following steps to complete the data analysis for this task: 1) The total number of (co-)authored publications and the total number of publications in the subfield of nuclear science and technology were collected for the JRC and its comparator organisations for the years 2007-2015. 2) To show the publication output share of the NST subfield in JRC’s total publication output, this subfield is compared with the other major subfields of JRC publication activity. 3) The Subfield Normalised Citation Impact (SNCI) for each JRC (co-)authored publication and each comparator organisation was calculated based on the observed total citations received up until September 2016, divided by the world average for papers in the NST subfield and published in the same year. 4) From all publications in NST (from the JRC and each of the comparators) the publications which fell within the "top 10 % of most highly cited NST publications made worldwide"18 were selected (Annex 3 provides an overview of the titles of highly cited JRC NST publications per year). 5) The total number of highly cited (top 10 %) NST publications per year for JRC and for each of the comparator organisation are reported. 6) The percentage of highly cited (top 10 %) NST publications for the JRC and each of the comparator organisations are reported. These citation impact data were calculated for the time-window 2007-2015, i.e. starting with the publication year up to and including September 2016. 7) The Subfield Normalised Citation Impact (SNCI) was compared to the SNCI of each member of the two groups of comparator organisations for the Web of Science subfield category Nuclear Science and Technology 8) The individual publications were downloaded from the online version of Web of Science. All publications were analysed to identify the publications in which JRC researchers were the corresponding authors and those publications which were "internationally co-authored with non-JRC researchers"19.

18 In its report Thomson Reuters uses an alternative definition of highly cited publications, namely those publications with an average citation impact of four or more. We follow common practice in the field by selecting the top 10% most highly cited publication indicator (Tijssen et al., 2002). 19 This refers to co-publications with researchers based in research organisations in another country then the JRC research facility in which JRC authors are employed: e.g. a publication by a researcher in Petten, the Netherlands, with a researcher in France. Co-publications between JRC researchers based in different geographical sites are not included. Arguably JRC co-publications with researchers in other domestic organisations could also be considered as international co-publications given the special status of the JRC as being part of an international organisations, This latter decision, however, was not taken: e.g. a co-publication between JRC researchers in Petten with researchers at Delft university are not considered international co- publications.

Note that the validity and statistical robustness of a publication’s citation impact score declines as the time window for accumulation of citations shortens. The impact scores of 2014-2015 publications should be interpreted with great caution.

3.3 Results 3.3.1 Analysis of the percentage of highly cited JRC publications per year Figure 1 shows the relative share in JRC output of the top 20 main research subfields in the WoS database, which shows that NST is the second largest fields of JRC publication activity following environmental science. Figure 1 JRC publication output per Web of science subfield ( (2007-2015)

Table 2 provides the frequency counts of all publications (co-)authored by JRC staff (‘total JRC output’) and the subset related to the subfield of nuclear science and technology (JRC-NST). The table also shows the number and share of top 10 % most highly cited publications in the NST field.

Table 2 Relative share of NST publications in JRC output and number of world top 10 % most-cited publications Nr. of all % JRC-NST Total JRC NST publications Total % of NST in number of publications in the Publication number of the JRC total JRC in world top world’s top year publications publication publications 10 % highly 10 %- - all JRC output in NST cited NST highly publications cited20 2007 56 642 8.7 10 17.9 2008 79 690 11.4 12 15.2 2009 94 651 14.4 18 19.2 2010 106 730 14.5 11 10.4 2011 88 790 11.1 15 17.1 2012 95 784 12.1 13 13.7 2013 76 855 8.9 13 17.1 2014 98 919 10.7 16 16.3 2015 82 893 9.2 6 7.321

Figure 2 provides a graphical overview of the publication production in the subfield of Nuclear Science and Technology (NST) complemented with the number of highly cited publications (top 10 %) per year, 2007-2015. Annual publication output has increased up until 2010, after which it stabilised at around 80-100 NST publications per year. The share of NST articles which are among the top 10 % most-cited in their field is above 15 % in most years, indicating that the JRC is around 50 % above the world average on this metric. Again citation based results for 2015 are volatile due to the short time window to accumulate citations Figure 2 JRC NST publication output and share (%) of documents in the top 10 % most- cited

20 The percentages are rounded to first decimals. 21 Citation based indicators calculated with a short time horizon are very volatile. Interpret with extreme caution.

Figure 3 shows the Subfield Normalised Citation Indicator (SNCI) for the JRC publication output in the Nuclear Science and Technology subfield. In most years, JRC publications receive on average around the world average number of citations when normalised by the citation intensity in the NST subfield. In some years (e.g. 2011) it is well above the world average and in others (e.g. 2010) well below (20 %). There is an interesting paradox here: while the JRC-NST performs well above average on the top 10 % metric (see table 2), it performs at world average level on the SNCI metrics. A possible explanation is that the citation distribution to JRC publications is relatively skewed. I.e. a relatively small set of publications attracts many citations while a large share of the publications is cited below average. In order to understand more about the highly cited articles, annex 3 provides the titles and journals of the highly cited JRC NST publications. Figure 3SNCI of the JRC publication output (NST)

1.4 Subfield normalised citation indicator

1.2 1.14 1.13 1.15 1.09 1.09 1.01 1.02 1 0.96

0.80 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

In order to understand why the JRC NST output performs considerably better on the top 10 % indicator and is close to the world average on the SNCI indicator, table 3 shows the shares of JRC NST publications made in the different journals in this subfield. It shows that over 20 % of the JRC publications are published in one of the highest impact journals in this category the “Journal of Nuclear Materials”. This could be related to the relatively high share of publications (around 50 % more than the world average) found among the top 10 % most-cited publications in this field. 22 We do also find a considerable number of publications made in lower impact journals. This may be partially associated to the lower Subfield Normalised Citation Impact. However as shown in annex 3, the highly cited JRC-NST publications are not solely concentrated in the highest impact journal but spread out over several different journal titles and topics.

22 Here it is important to realise that citation distribution between articles in a given journal are highly skewed. The Journal Impact factor is therefore in general not used to evaluate organisations.

Table 3 Share of JRC NST publications per NST journal

Journal Impact JRC NST Rank Full Journal Title Factor publications %

1 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH 2.529 0.54 2 JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS 2.199 20.68 3 JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION 1.581 0.27 4 FUSION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN 1.301 0.68 5 RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY 1.207 2.86 6 JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 1.202 1.09

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 7 SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT 1.200 13.61 8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE 1.198 1.22 9 HEALTH PHYSICS 1.193 0.14 10 PROGRESS IN NUCLEAR ENERGY 1.184 4.22 11 ANNALS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY 1.174 2.59 12 APPLIED RADIATION AND ISOTOPES 1.136 13.33 13 RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 1.100 5.99 14 RADIATION MEASUREMENTS 1.071 1.63 15 JOURNAL OF RADIOANALYTICAL AND NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY 0.983 7.21 16 NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN 0.967 11.43 17 NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING 0.844 1.50 18 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS 0.811 1.09 19 NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNIQUES 0.641 0.14 20 NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY 0.623 2.99 21 RADIATION EFFECTS AND DEFECTS IN SOLIDS 0.472 0.82 22 NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY & RADIATION PROTECTION 0.372 0.68 23 KERNTECHNIK 0.248 0.54 24 PROBLEMS OF ATOMIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 0.136 0.14 25 NUCLEAR ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL 0.070 1.77 26 ATW-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUCLEAR POWER 0.045 2.86 To continue this analysis, table 4 shows the share of NST publications and top 10 % publications which are the results of 'co-publications with a foreign research organisation' and the share of JRC publications and 'top 10 % publications with a JRC corresponding author'. The table shows that international co-publications are responsible for a high share (> 70 %) of the JRC top 10 % highly cited publications. This was expected, as international co-publications are known to receive a relatively high number of citations on average. However, almost 30 % of the highly cited publications are published by JRC authors alone or with domestic partners. The share of publications with a JRC corresponding author (an indicator of research leadership) is around 60 %. This share is somewhat lower among the top 10 % most highly cited publications, but still almost half. It can thus be deduced that JRC authors are the leading authors in around half of the most-cited JRC NST publications. These are thus not solely the result of JRC authors making (potentially minor) contributions to publications by large consortia. One can be reasonably sure that they are based on substantive JRC research efforts. Table 4 Analysing top 10 % most highly cited JRC NST publications 2007-2015

Share of JRC NST publications co-authored by researchers in foreign organisations 67.7 %

Share of Top 10 % most highly cited JRC NST publications co-authored by 71.9 % researchers in foreign organisations

Share of JRC NST articles with a JRC Corresponding Author 60.2 %

Share of Top 10 % most highly cited JRC NST publications with a JRC 48.2 % corresponding author

3.3.2 Comparison of the JRC NST performance with Group 1 comparator organisations Table 5 provides a comparison of the number of JRC NST publications relative to the first group of comparator organisations that were used in the Thomson Reuters study. The organisations in this table are ordered by the number of NST publications. We find that the JRC NST output constitutes around 11 % of JRC's total publication output. This is a higher share than for any of the other Group 1 comparators, including the CEA and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It is also much more than for the CNRS, Max Planck Society and universities like Cambridge University and Oxford University. The table also shows data on the number of publications and the number and share of highly cited (top 10 %) publications which are visualised in the figures that constitute the rest of this section. Table 5 Group 1 organisations: publication output, share of NST publications in total output; world top 10 % most highly cited publications (2007-2015) Total % of nuclear Nr. of % Documents Total number of number of research Documents Organisation in Top 10% publications publications publications/ in Top 10% NST NST Total NST Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA) 42,311 3,058 7.2 525 17.2 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) 262,715 2,116 0.8 359 17.0 Max Planck Society (MPG) 90,165 1,415 1.6 260 18.4 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 15,350 1,156 7.5 247 21.4 Joint Research Centre (JRC) 6,957 774 11.1 114 14.7 Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) 14,834 670 4.5 97 14.5 Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) 42,739 312 0.7 38 12.2 VTT Technical Research Center Finland (VTT) 4,186 308 7.4 46 14.9 University of Oxford (OX) 76,467 272 0.4 76 27.9 National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) - USA 11,782 236 2.0 20 8.5 National Physical Laboratory (NPL) - UK 2,157 117 5.4 9 7.7 University of Cambridge (CU) 69,373 116 0.2 21 18.1 Austrian Research Center (ARC) 1,285 58 4.5 2 3.5 Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (FHG) 8,392 30 0.4 5 16.7 Netherlands Organisation Applied Science Research (TNO) 4,990 27 0.5 3 11.1 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8,734 19 0.2 4 21.1

Figure 4 provides an overview of the number of NST publications of group 1 comparators. As is clear from figure 4, four organisations publish a considerably larger number of NST publications than the JRC. This includes the CNRS, MPG and the CEA. The latter, as a dedicated mission oriented centre with a large share of NST research in its total portfolio, is also considered in the second set of comparators. When comparing JCR-NST to much larger organisations one should be aware of how their ‘economies of scale and scope’ may beneficially affect research performance. The Argonne National Laboratory is a potentially useful comparator of the JRC which we will take into account in the discussion. The same is true for the other US National Lab: Oak Ridge. The VTT Technical Research Centre in Finland seems to have a close resemblance to the JCR with regards to the share of its publication output in NST and the share of NST papers within the world’s top 10 % most highly cited. Most of the remaining organisations have fairly minimal NST publication activity, especially when set against their large output in other fields (see table 5). In this subfield of JRC activity they are therefore considered much less relevant and should be discarded as suitable comparators. To supplement figure 5, Annex 2 provides an overview of the annual NST publication output for the different organisations. While there are remarkable year-on-year fluctuations in production for some organisations, the relative size of the publication output of the different organisations remains more or less similar.

Figure 4. - Group 1 organisations: total number of NST publications (2007-2015)

CEA 3,058 CNRS 2,116 MPG 1,415 ORNL 1,156 JRC 774 ANL 670 CNR 312 VTT 308 OX 272 NIST 236 NPL 117 CU 116 ARC 58 FHG 30 TNO 27 EPA 19

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Nr. of publications

Figure 5 compares the JRC to the same group of organisations in terms of the share of highly cited (top 10 % most-cited) publications in the NST field. From the organisations which publish a comparable or considerably higher number of NST publications than the JRC, the Argonne national laboratory and the VTT have a similar share of NST publications among the top 10 % most highly cited: namely around 15 %. This indicates that these organisations have roughly 50 % more of such publications than the world average of 10 %. Considering the small number of publications concerned one should not over-interpret the small differences between organisations like the JRC, CNRS and MPG. All have a considerable overrepresentation of top 10 % most highly cited publications. The US Oak Ridge National laboratory and the Oxford University do perform particularly well on this indicator.. Figure 5 Group 1 organisations: % NST publications in top 10 % (2007-2015)

CEA 17.2

CNRS 17.0

MPG 18.4

ORNL 21.4

JRC 14.7

ANL 14.5

CNR 12.2

VTT 14.9

OX 27.9

NIST 8.5

NPL 7.7

CU 18.1

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Figure 6 shows the Subfield Normalised Citation Impact for the JRC in comparison to group 1 comparators. The figure shows that the JRC has a SNCI around the world average of 1 indicating that an average JRC publication in the NST field receives the same number of citations as an average paper published worldwide. The impact of CEA and CNRS publications is around 15-20 % above the world average. That of Argonne (ANL) is similar to the JRC, whereas the publications of the Max Planck Society, Cambridge University, Oxford University and the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory receive a considerably higher number of citations per paper than the world average. Figure 6 Group 1 organisations: SNCI of NST publications (2007-2015)

1.8

1.6 1.52 1.54

1.4 1.28 1.28 1.21 1.19 1.2 1.14 1.04 0.96 1.0 0.91

0.8 0.72 0.68

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 CEA CNRS MPG ORNL JRC ANL CNR VTT OX NIST NPL CU

3.3.3 Comparison of the JRC NST performance with Group 2 comparator organisations Table 6 provides a comparison of the number of JRC NST publications relative to the second group of comparator organisations. Again the JRC NST output constitutes around 11 % of JRC's total output. This is a lower share than for the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) but still considerably higher than for the other organisations except the Paul Scherrer Institute which also has a comparable size. The PSI is similar to the JRC also on the other indicators considered. It could therefore be considered a potential key comparator to the JRC. Table 6 also shows data on the number of NST publications and the number and share of highly cited (top 10 %) NST publications which are visualised in the figures that constitute the rest of this section. Table 6 Group 2 organisations: publication output, share of NST publications in total output; world top 10 % most highly cited publications (2007-2016) Nr. of Total number Total number % NST Documents % Documents Organisation of of NST publications in Top 10% in Top 10% NST publications publications NST Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA) 42,311 3,058 7.2 525 17.17 Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) 8,829 2,970 33.6 232 7.81 Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) 239,410 2,327 1.0 259 11.13 Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) 10,607 1,706 16.1 118 6.92 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) 21,060 1,403 6.7 211 15.04 Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) 15,971 992 6.2 112 11.29 Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI 8,557 889 10.4 137 15.41 Joint Research Centre (JRC) 6,957 774 11.1 114 14.73 Julich Research Center (RCJ) 10,811 766 7.1 150 19.58 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) 9,704 714 7.4 133 18.63

Figure 7 Group 2 organisations: total number of NST publications (2007-2015)

3,058 2,970 3,000

2,500 2,327

2,000 1,706

1,500 1,403

992 1,000 889 774 766 714

500

0 CEA JAEA CAS BARC KIT LANL PSI JRC RCJ LLNL

It is clear from the table and figure 7 above in combination with the previous sector, that the JRC is a considerable medium sized producer of Nuclear Science and Technology publications. Its output in this field is small relative to the CEA, CAS, JAEA, KIT and BARC. Also the Los Alamos National Laboratory publishes more publications. Annex 4 provides some indication of the relative size of the respective comparator organisations in terms of mission, budget and research staff.23

23 On the basis of the data presented in this report on the size and scientific output of organisations it is not possible to make an assessment of the relative productivity of nuclear research staff in the JRC and the comparator organisations. Readers should be very cautious in drawing such inferences themselves, given the lack of information on the share of staff involved in NST research and the time they actually devote to research and other tasks. This type of productivity assessment might be possible to assess through more detailed case studies, but it is beyond the scope of the analysis presented here.

Figure 8 compares the JRC to the same group of organisations in terms of the share of highly cited (top 10 % most-cited) publications in the NST field. One finds that the JAEA, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, the CAS and the Los Alamos National Laboratory have lower shares of top 10 % most-cited publications than the JRC. On this indicator the JRC performs at a similar level as the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) and the Paul Scherrer institute (PSI) which both have around 15 % of their publications among the top 10 % most highly cited: i.e. 50 % more than the world average. The CEA, The Jülich Research Centre and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have a considerably higher share of highly cited publications. In absolute terms, as was shown in table 6, the much larger CEA publishes almost five times as many of the top 10 % most highly cited publications as the JRC. Figure 8 Group 2 organisations: share (%) of NST publications in the world’s top 10 % most-cited (2007-2015)

25.0

19.58 20.0 18.63 17.17 15.41 15.04 14.73 15.0

11.13 11.29

10.0 7.81 6.92

5.0

0.0 CEA JAEA CAS BARC KIT LANL PSI JRC RCJ LLNL

As can be seen from Figure 9, the average impact of publications from the Indian Bhabha Centre, the Japanese Atomic Energy Association, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the US Los Alamos National Lab also have a lower score on the "SNCI” metric than the JRC. The JRC itself performs around the world average as its NST publications receive around the same number of citations as the average paper in this field published worldwide. The Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), the KIT and the CEA have scores on this metric which are around 10-20 % higher than the world average, whereas the Research Centre Jülich (RCJ) and the Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) stand out in terms of the average number of citations its publications receive. Figure 9 Group 2 organisations: Subfield Normalised Citation Indicator (SNCI) (2007-2015) in NST

4. Discussion and conclusions In this bibliometric analysis of the JRC output in the NST field we were guided by some general considerations to which quantitative research evaluations should adhere. The analysis is in principle replicable by any analyst who has access to the InCites platform or the underlying Web of Science Database. As the citation metrics are calculated at a specific point in time, there can be variations in especially the citation metrics for recent years. The metrics used are standard and widely accepted. This should ensure the credibility of the analysis. Given that 62 % of the published output of the JRC is captured in the Web of Science database and that this publication set comprises the bulk of publications with scientific impact, the report argues that the analysis has a sufficient level of accuracy and representativeness. The observed metrics and trends for the JRC are in line with the comparator organisations and do not show major fluctuations or unexplainable observations. The results of the analysis are therefore deemed plausible. Finally, in this concluding section, we have tried to be careful in drawing conclusions that can be justified on the basis of the analysis. This analytical report compares the evolution of JRC research publication output in the subfield of Nuclear Science and Technology (NST) both with the world average and with two groups of selected comparator organisations. Publication and citation analysis allows one to assess one type of (scientific) impact. This is a narrow approach when considering the mission and nature of the JRC. This analysis should therefore be considered only one input in an evaluation by qualified peers with a broad understanding of the research carried out and its impact on knowledge production, policy and society. We find that with around 11 % of the total JRC publication output, the JRC remains a medium-sized producer of publications in this field. In terms of scientific impact we find that the JRC produces around 50 % more highly cited publications than the world average. The “Subfield Normalised Citation Impact” of the JRC in this field is around the world average. The combination of the relatively high share of publications among the top 10 % most-cited and the relatively lower “SNCI”, indicates that the JRC also publishes a relatively large number of NST publications which receive a low level of citations. Potential explanations why the JRC NST performance distribution is more skewed than that of some of the other organisations (such as the VTT and the Paul Scherrer Institute) in this field could relate to: 1) the relatively restrictive research focus for which the JRC is mandated 24 ; 2) unusual collaboration patterns leading to the highly cited publications; 3) potentially unequal quality across JRC sub-units or research programmes; or 4) specific publication strategies or habits which may have been incentivised in the past. A conclusive answer to this question is beyond the scope of this report. 70 % of the high-impact JRC NST publications are international co-publications. In almost half of the high-impact publications, JRC researchers are the corresponding author. The high-impact publications are thus not solely the result of (potentially minor) JRC participation in large research consortia. To an important extent they are thought to be the outcome of substantial JRC research activity. The list of top 10 % most highly cited publications provided in annex 3 shows that these publications are not only published in the top ranked NST journals by impact factor, but cover a broader range of journals and topics. The report argues that the JRC can best be compared to other mission oriented centres that specialise on Nuclear Science and Technology research. Organisations like the CNRS and Max Planck Society are public research centres with a basic science mission. The nature of these organisations may therefore not be

24 For example fusion research is not under the JRC mandate and the JRC has a unique mandate on nuclear safeguards R&D in Europe.

comparable to that of the JRC. As the European Commission's science and knowledge service, the JRC's mission is "to support EU policies with independent evidence throughout the whole policy cycle". In the Nuclear field the JRC activities include, in addition to R&D activities, the monitoring of different nuclear directives for DG Energy and the provision of technical support and training to the Euratom directorates. These other activities take up a considerable share of the work time of JRC scientific staff, which cannot be devoted to research and publishing. Also size effects due to economies of scale and scope can influence the relative performance on citation based indicators. This may limit the comparability of the JRC with organisations which are substantially different in size, such as the CEA. We therefore focus this discussion on a number of comparator organisations which share important elements of the nature of the JRC and have a comparable size and relative share of NST activities in their total publication portfolio.25 The Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland and the VTT in Finland are close to the JRC in terms of output and impact. Their share of top 10 % most highly cited publications is similar to the JRC and significantly (around 50 %) above the world average. The SNCI is considerably higher for both organisations and around 15-20 % above the world average and the JRC score on this indicator. The US Department of Energy National Laboratory system as a whole is the most prolific producer of publications in this field by a considerable distance. Several of its institutes, including the Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories on their own publish more NST publications than the JRC. They also outperform most other organisations considered, including the JRC, on both impact indicators. Other individual US National Laboratories such as Argonne National Lab and the Los Alamos National Laboratory produce comparable numbers of NST publications with a high scientific impact as the JRC. In terms of its share of highly cited publications the JRC performs relatively well in comparison to the world average and the two groups of comparator organisations.

25 Other organisations such as the French CEA are important to mention because they are important collaborators of the JRC. We find that the CEA has a higher share of highly cited publications (top 10%) and a higher average impact of its publications than the JRC. This may be related in part to economies of scale and scope.

Literature References Cruz Castro, L., Bleda, M., Jonkers, K., Derrick, G, Martinez, C., Sanz Menendez, L., (2011) OECD IPP actor brief, public research organisations Evaluation of the Research Performance of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission during the 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013). Thomson Reuter, 2014 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/thompson-reuters-study-2007-2013.pdf Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., Rafols, I., 2015, Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics, Nature, Volume 520, Issue 7548, pp. 429-431. JRC Productivity and Impact Report, Results from PRIME 2015, Ref. Ares(2016)2889992 - 22/06/2016 Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V.P., Bornmann, L. et al. (2013) The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: a promising new approach Scientometrics, Volume 97, Issue 2, pp 421–434 Thomson Reuters, 2016, InCites Indicator handbook: http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/indicators-handbook.pdf Tijssen, R.J.W, Visser M., and T. van Leeuwen 2002. Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics 54 (3), 381-397.

List of Figures Figure 1 JRC publication output per Web of science subfield ( (2007-2015) ...... 13 Figure 2 JRC NST publication output and share (%) of documents in the top 10% most cited ...... 14 Figure 3SNCI of the JRC publication output (NST) ...... 15 Figure 4. - Group 1 organisations: total number of NST publications (2007-2015) ...... 18 Figure 5 Group 1 organisations: % NST publications in top 10% (2007-2015) ...... 19 Figure 6 Group 1 organisations: SNCI of NST publications (2007-2015) ...... 20 Figure 7 Group 2 organisations: total number of NST publications (2007-2015) ...... 22 Figure 8 Group 2 organisations: share (%) of NST publications in the world’s top 10% most cited (2007-2015) ...... 23 Figure 9 Group 2 organisations: Subfield normalized citation indicator (SNCI) (2007- 2015) in NST ...... 24

List of Tables Table 1 Group 1 and Group 2 comparator organisations ...... 10 Table 2 Relative share of NST publications in JRC output and number of world top 10% most cited publications ...... 14 Table 3 Share of JRC NST publications per NST journal ...... 16 Table 4 Analysing top 10% most highly cited JRC NST publications...... 16 Table 5 Group 1 organisations: publication output, share of NST publications in total output; world top 10% most highly cited publications (2007-2015) ...... 17 Table 6 Group 2 organisations: publication output, share of NST publications in total output; world top 10% most highly cited publications (2007-2016) ...... 21

Annex 1 – Journal based Subfield categories There are also other JRC Nuclear research related publications which are not contained in the NST field, but instead in the subfield of Nuclear Physics. As a consequence 166 nuclear research articles were not taken into account in the assessment. A check was made to ensure these publications did not perform differently in terms of the impact metrics than the NST publications. The decision, taking in consultation with the outside bibliometric expert, not to include a combined field of NST and Nuclear Physics publications was that JRC publications in the latter field were more peripheral than in the NST field. By including another field, we would have compared a somewhat larger JRC output with a considerably larger 'universe of publications'. Because the NST subfield was deemed more representative of JRC activity a decision was made to focus on this field. As highlighted by an expert on JRC nuclear research, two of the 33 journals in the NST subfield deal exclusively with fusion research, an area in which the JRC is not allowed to develop activities. Considering the (reportedly) relatively large share of Euratom funding devoted to fusion research this area of the NST subfield might be a relatively hot topic producing a relatively large share of research publications. The ‘journal impact factors’ of the two exclusive nuclear fusion research journals are ranked 6 and 22 out of 32 (i.e. research publications in one of the journals received a relatively high number of citations on average, whereas the publications in the other receive a lower level of citations). While allowing for the possibility that fusion research is also published in some of the other journals in this subfield, and could therefore also attract a relatively high number of citations, the inclusion of these two dedicated journals is not likely to have disadvantaged the JRC relative performance in terms of citation impact.

NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY - JOURNAL LIST 26

1. ANNALS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

2. APPLIED RADIATION AND ISOTOPES

3. ATOMIC ENERGY

4. ATW-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUCLEAR POWER

5. FUSION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

6. FUSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

7. HEALTH PHYSICS

8. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE

9. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

10. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION BIOLOGY

11. JOURNAL OF FUSION ENERGY

12. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS

13. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

26 Journal Citation Reports, Thomson Reuters Science Citation Index Expanded 2016.

14. JOURNAL OF RADIOANALYTICAL AND NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY

15. JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION

16. KERNTECHNIK

17. NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

18. NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

19. NUCLEAR ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL

20. NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS SP ECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

21. NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION B-BEAM INTERACTIO NS WITH MATERIALS AND ATOMS

22. NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

23. NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNIQUES

24. NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

25. NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY & RADIATION PROTECTION

26. PROGRESS IN NUCLEAR ENERGY

27. RADIATION EFFECTS AND DEFECTS IN SOLIDS

28. RADIATION MEASUREMENTS

29. RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY

30. RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY

31. RADIOCHIMICA ACTA

32. RADIOPROTECTION

33. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS

Annex 2 - Annual Evolution of publication output for the comparator organisations Table A2.1 shows the evolution (growth or decline) in NST publications for group 1 organisations. In addition to the JRC it shows the evolution of the total volume of NST publications made by organisations like the CEA, CNRS, Max Planck Society, Oak Ridge and Argonne National Laboratories. Whereas there are remarkable year on year fluctuations, in general the relative ordering of the organisations in terms of scientific output remains fairly stable over time. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total CEA 321 355 403 265 407 290 363 329 325 3058 CNRS 206 223 250 214 238 229 286 245 225 2116 MPG 208 77 237 109 231 80 230 84 159 1415 ORNL 154 101 116 75 152 99 162 148 149 1156 JRC 56 79 94 106 88 95 76 98 82 774 ANL 70 68 78 52 102 66 106 51 77 670 CNR 70 45 38 38 26 12 27 20 36 312 VTT 23 12 61 27 47 10 39 36 53 308 OX 34 19 41 23 40 21 27 33 34 272 NIST 33 37 39 27 24 19 18 25 14 236 NPL 13 8 8 19 6 13 6 27 17 117 CU 19 8 6 5 10 16 15 18 19 116 ARC 22 12 11 3 3 3 1 1 2 58 FHG : 4 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 30 TNO 3 : 6 1 11 2 3 1 : 27 EPPA : 4 2 : : 3 4 1 5 19

Table A2.2 shows that the JAEA and CEA publish more than 300+ publications annually. The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in India almost doubled its annual output over the period under study. The output of the other organisations shows considerable fluctuation, but there are no clear up or downward trends for the organisations under study.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total CEA 321 355 403 265 407 290 363 329 325 3,058 JAEA 354 306 402 235 479 235 323 317 319 2,970 CAS 201 149 163 209 228 201 326 399 451 2,327 BARC 100 141 154 163 211 233 220 274 210 1,706 KIT 165 148 188 104 196 107 178 143 174 1,403 LANL 113 120 139 91 84 104 136 96 109 992 PSI 109 91 126 97 121 84 83 103 75 889 JRC 56 79 94 106 88 95 76 98 82 774 RCJ 68 56 119 49 123 65 132 52 102 766 LLNL 134 44 110 42 96 54 107 44 83 714

Annex 3 – Top 10 most highly cited JRC NST publications

Publication title Journal Year

Solubility and redox reactions of Pu(IV) hydrous RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2007 oxide: Evidence for the formation of PuO2+x(s, hyd)

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & The use of C6D6 detectors for neutron induced METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH capture cross-section measurements in the SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2007 resonance region SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Hydrolysis of plutonium(IV) in acidic solutions: no effect of hydrolysis on absorption-spectra of RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2007 mononuclear hydroxide complexes

CABAS: A freely available PC program for fitting RADIATION PROTECTION calibration curves in chromosome aberration 2007 DOSIMETRY dosimetry

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & Development of the EURITRACK tagged neutron METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH 2007 inspection system SECTION B-BEAM INTERACTIONS WITH MATERIALS AND ATOMS

Investigation of electrorefining of metallic alloy fuel JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2007 onto solid Al cathodes MATERIALS

Microstructural analysis of candidate steels pre- JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2007 selected for new advanced reactor systems MATERIALS

Thermal and physical properties of molten fluorides JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2007 for nuclear applications MATERIALS

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & Status and outlook of the neutron time-of-flight METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH 2007 facility SECTION B-BEAM INTERACTIONS WITH MATERIALS AND ATOMS

A novel method for n.c.a. Cu-64 production by the Zn-64(d, 2p)Cu-64 reaction and dual ion-exchange RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2007 column chromatography

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & Natural and anthropogenic (236)U in environmental METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH 2008 samples SECTION B-BEAM INTERACTIONS WITH MATERIALS AND ATOMS

On the formation of U-Al alloys in the molten LiCl-KCl JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2008 eutectic MATERIALS

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH In-field tests of the EURITRACK tagged neutron SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2008 inspection system SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

An intercomparison of Monte Carlo codes used in APPLIED RADIATION AND 2008 gamma-ray spectrometry ISOTOPES

JOURNAL OF RADIOANALYTICAL Protocol for uncertainty assessment of half-lives 2008 AND NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY

Fission product release and microstructure changes JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR during laboratory annealing of a very high burn-up 2008 MATERIALS fuel specimen

Cross-sections of the reaction Th-232(p,3n)Pa-230 APPLIED RADIATION AND for reaction of U-230 production for targeted alpha 2008 ISOTOPES therapy

Measurement of 14 MeV neutron-induced prompt APPLIED RADIATION AND gamma-ray spectra from 15 elements found in cargo 2008 ISOTOPES containers

Accelerator driven systems for transmutation: Fuel PROGRESS IN NUCLEAR ENERGY 2008 development, design and safety

Sorption of radionuclides onto natural clay rocks RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2008

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Monte Carlo modelling of germanium crystals that SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2008 are tilted and have rounded front edges SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Oxygen stoichiometry shift of irradiated LWR-fuels at JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR high burn-ups: Review of data and alternative 2008 MATERIALS interpretation of recently published results

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH The Borexino detector at the Laboratori Nazionali del SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2009 Gran Sasso SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH The n_TOF Total Absorption Calorimeter for neutron SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2009 capture measurements at CERN SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR Metallic fuels for advanced reactors 2009 MATERIALS

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH The liquid handling systems for the Borexino solar SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2009 neutrino detector SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Computer simulation of defects formation and JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2009 equilibrium in non-stoichiometric uranium dioxide MATERIALS

New insights in the formation processes of Pu(IV) RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2009 colloids

A new low-level gamma-ray spectrometry system for APPLIED RADIATION AND environmental radioactivity at the underground 2009 ISOTOPES laboratory Felsenkeller

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Total characterization of neutron detectors with a Cf- SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2009 252 source and a new light output determination SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Investigation of the radiolytic stability of a CyMe4- RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2009 BTBP based SANEX solvent

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR Sodium fast reactor evaluation: Core materials 2009 MATERIALS

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR Laser melting of uranium carbides 2009 MATERIALS

TRLFS study on the complexation of Cm(III) with nitrate in the temperature range from 5 to 200 RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2009 degrees C

Sequential determination of Po-210 and uranium APPLIED RADIATION AND radioisotopes in drinking water by alpha-particle 2009 ISOTOPES spectrometry

Study of thermodynamic properties of Np-Al alloys in JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2009 molten LiCl-KCl eutectic MATERIALS

Towards an optimized flow-sheet for a SANEX RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2009 demonstration process using centrifugal contactors

Anion analysis in uranium ore concentrates by ion JOURNAL OF RADIOANALYTICAL 2009 chromatography AND NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Pulse-height distributions of neutron and gamma SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2009 rays from plutonium-oxide samples SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Corrosion of irradiated MOX fuel in presence of JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2009 dissolved H-2 MATERIALS

The U-235(n, f) Prompt Fission Neutron Spectrum at NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND 2010 100 K Input Neutron Energy ENGINEERING

Impact of auto-irradiation on the thermophysical JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2010 properties of oxide nuclear reactor fuels MATERIALS

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & Global characterisation of the GELINA facility for METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH high-resolution neutron time-of-flight measurements SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2010 by Monte Carlo simulations SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Point by Point model calculation of the prompt neutron multiplicity distribution P(v) for spontaneous ANNALS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY 2010 and neutron induced fission of actinides

Intercomparison of methods for coincidence APPLIED RADIATION AND 2010 summing corrections in gamma-ray spectrometry ISOTOPES

Origin assessment of uranium ore concentrates RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2010 based on their rare-earth elemental impurity pattern

Investigation of the PGNAA using the LaBr3 APPLIED RADIATION AND 2010 scintillation detector ISOTOPES

APPLIED RADIATION AND Testing efficiency transfer codes for equivalence 2010 ISOTOPES

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Comparison of digital and analogue data acquisition SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2010 systems for nuclear spectroscopy SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH The gamma efficiency of the GAINS spectrometer SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2010 SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & Helium behavior in oxide nuclear fuels: First METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH 2010 principles modeling SECTION B-BEAM INTERACTIONS WITH MATERIALS AND ATOMS

Thermodynamic modelling of advanced oxide and JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR carbide nuclear fuels: Description of the U-Pu-O-C 2011 MATERIALS systems

Thermal diffusivity and conductivity of thorium- JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2011 plutonium mixed oxides MATERIALS

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Experimental response functions of a single-crystal SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2011 diamond detector for 5-20.5 MeV neutrons SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH New information on the characteristics of 1 in. x 1 in. SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2011 cerium bromide scintillation detectors SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Qualification of P91 welds through Small Punch creep JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2011 testing MATERIALS

Direct electrochemical reduction of solid uranium JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2011 oxide in molten fluoride salts MATERIALS

RADIATION PROTECTION STATUS OF THE EUROPEAN INDOOR RADON MAP 2011 DOSIMETRY

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR A thermodynamic study of the Pu-Am-O system 2011 MATERIALS

Seasonal indoor radon concentration in FYR of RADIATION MEASUREMENTS 2011 Macedonia

Alternative method for the production date JOURNAL OF RADIOANALYTICAL determination of impure uranium ore concentrate 2011 AND NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY samples

The mechanism of the hydrothermal alteration of JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2011 cerium- and plutonium-doped zirconolite MATERIALS

Stress corrosion cracking susceptibility of austenitic JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2011 stainless steels in supercritical water conditions MATERIALS

Economic viability of small to medium-sized reactors PROGRESS IN NUCLEAR ENERGY 2011 deployed in future European energy markets

Optimising BTP ligands by tuning their basicity RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2011

On the melting behaviour of uranium/plutonium JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR mixed dioxides with high-Pu content: A laser heating 2011 MATERIALS study

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH MCNPX-PoliMi for nuclear nonproliferation SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2012 applications SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

A review of the demonstration of innovative solvent extraction processes for the recovery of trivalent RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2012 minor actinides from PUREX raffinate

Fabrication and characterization of (U, Am)O2-x JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2012 transmutation targets MATERIALS

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Testing on novel neutron detectors as alternative to SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2012 He-3 for security applications SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH High resolution measurement of neutron inelastic SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2012 scattering cross-sections for Na-23 SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Application of the Shockley-Ramo theorem on the SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2012 grid inefficiency of Frisch grid ionization chambers SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

On the electrochemical formation of Pu-Al alloys in JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2012 molten LiCl-KCl MATERIALS

APPLIED RADIATION AND Measurement of the Ac-225 half-life 2012 ISOTOPES

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH On the Frisch-Grid signal in ionization chambers SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2012 SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Anisotropic mechanical properties of the MA956 ODS JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR steel characterized by the small punch testing 2012 MATERIALS technique

Bulk-nanocrystalline oxide nuclear fuels - An JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR innovative material option for increasing fission gas 2012 MATERIALS retention, plasticity and radiation-tolerance

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Identification of prompt fission gamma-rays with SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2012 lanthanum-chloride scintillation detectors SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Ab initio modelling of volatile fission products in JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2012 uranium mononitride MATERIALS

Physics-based modelling of fission gas swelling and NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND 2013 release in UO2 applied to integral fuel rod analysis DESIGN

Transport and deposition in the Phebus FP circuit ANNALS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY 2013

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Neutron measurements with lanthanum-bromide SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2013 scintillation detectors-A first approach SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGICAL The European map of the geogenic radon potential 2013 PROTECTION

Development and demonstration of a new SANEX Partitioning Process for selective RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2013 actinide(III)/lanthanide(III) separation using a mixture of CyMe4BTBP and TODGA

Preparation of high-resolution U-238 alpha-sources JOURNAL OF RADIOANALYTICAL 2013 by electrodeposition: a comprehensive study AND NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY

The objectives of the Phebus FP experimental ANNALS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY 2013 programme and main findings

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Radiopurity of a CeBr3 crystal used as scintillation SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2013 detector SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Cyclotron production of Sc-44 for clinical application RADIOCHIMICA ACTA 2013

Molecular Dynamics study of the effects of non- JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR stoichiometry and oxygen Frenkel pairs on the 2013 MATERIALS thermal conductivity of uranium dioxide

Half-lives of Fr-221, At-217, Bi-213, Po-213 and Pb- APPLIED RADIATION AND 2013 209 from the Ac-225 decay series ISOTOPES

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Artificial diamonds as radiation-hard detectors for SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2013 ultra-fast fission-fragment timing SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH AMS of the Minor Plutonium Isotopes 2013 SECTION B-BEAM INTERACTIONS WITH MATERIALS AND ATOMS

The molten salt reactor (MSR) in generation IV: PROGRESS IN NUCLEAR ENERGY 2014 Overview and perspectives

Critical review, with an optimistic outlook, on Boron APPLIED RADIATION AND 2014 Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) ISOTOPES

Recent advances in the study of the UO2-PuO2 phase JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2014 diagram at high temperatures MATERIALS

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Characterization of a cubic EJ-309 liquid scintillator SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2014 detector SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Supercritical water-cooled reactor materials - PROGRESS IN NUCLEAR ENERGY 2014 Summary of research and open issues

APPLIED RADIATION AND Uncertainty propagation in nuclear forensics 2014 ISOTOPES

Determination of dead-layer variation in HPGe APPLIED RADIATION AND 2014 detectors ISOTOPES

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR Thermal diffusion of helium in Pu-238-doped UO2 2014 MATERIALS

Evaluation of chronometers in plutonium age JOURNAL OF RADIOANALYTICAL determination for nuclear forensics: What if the 'Pu/U 2014 AND NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY clocks' do not match?

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Development of a kinematically focused neutron SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2014 source with the p(Li-7,n)Be-7 inverse reaction SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Evolution of spent nuclear fuel in dry storage JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2014 conditions for millennia and beyond MATERIALS

Critical remarks on gross alpha/beta activity analysis APPLIED RADIATION AND in drinking waters: Conclusions from a European 2014 ISOTOPES interlaboratory comparison

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH Measurement of the angular distribution of fission SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2014 fragments using a PPAC assembly at CERN n_TOF SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & Plutonium measurements with a fast-neutron METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH multiplicity counter for nuclear safeguards SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2014 applications SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

FROM THE EUROPEAN INDOOR RADON MAP RADIATION PROTECTION 2014 TOWARDS AN ATLAS OF NATURAL RADIATION DOSIMETRY

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH GEANT4 simulation of the neutron background of the SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2014 C6D6 set-up for capture studies at n_TOF SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH The new vertical neutron beam line at the CERN SECTION A-ACCELERATORS 2015 n_TOF facility design and outlook on the performance SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Low temperature decomposition of U(IV) and Th(IV) JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2015 oxalates to nanograined oxide powders MATERIALS

APPLIED RADIATION AND Improved peak shape fitting in alpha spectra 2015 ISOTOPES

Linking atomic and mesoscopic scales for the JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR modelling of the transport properties of uranium 2015 MATERIALS dioxide under irradiation

Synthesis and crystal structure investigations of JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2015 ternary oxides in the Na-Pu-O system MATERIALS

Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of fission gas JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR 2015 behavior in engineering-scale fuel modeling MATERIALS

Annex 4 – Description of comparator organisations This annex provides for each of the comparator organisations a short description of its mission, followed by basic information on budget and number of research staff. This information is copied from the websites, annual reports and some additional supplementary information from websites. Accounting systems differ between European Member States and these differences are likely to be even more substantial for third countries. Also it is not possible with detailed information from e.g. administrative records to estimate the share of the budget or research staff devoted to nuclear research activities, where we know that some organisations have substantial non-nuclear research activities. Even if this data would be available it would not be possible to be certain how much time in FTE is devoted to Nuclear Research activities in each of these organisations. On the basis of the data provided in this report it is therefore not possible to make statements of the relative productivity of JRC researchers in comparison to researchers in other organisations. Readers should be very cautious in drawing such inferences themselves. To interpret the comparison between the JRC and the two groups of comparators it is nonetheless relevant to get a greater insight in the relative size of the organisations and the relative weight of NST research. In order to give a provisional idea of the relative importance of nuclear research in the total organisational research portfolio this Annex therefore shows the relative number of publications each organisation makes in nuclear and other research fields.

Group 1 comparators The French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) Location: The CEA is established in ten centres spread throughout France. Mission: The CEA provides public authorities and industry with the expertise and innovation needed to develop improved nuclear power generation systems. CEA is a key player in research, development and innovation in four main areas:  defence and security,  nuclear energy (fission and fusion),  technological research for industry,  fundamental research in the physical sciences and life sciences. Drawing on its widely acknowledged expertise, the CEA actively participates in collaborative projects with a large number of academic and industrial partners. Human Capital: The CEA had a workforce of 15,770 in 2014, of which 11,326 for the civil sector and 4,444 for the defence sector. Budget: 4,1 billion euros Website: http://www.cea.fr/english

Main research themes:

The National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) The CNRS is a public organisation, founded in 1939, falling under the responsibility of the French Ministry of National Education, Higher Education and Research. It covers all scientific disciplines, including the humanities and social sciences, biological sciences, nuclear and particle physics, information sciences, engineering and systems, physics, mathematical sciences, chemistry, Earth sciences and astronomy, ecology and the environment. Location: The CNRS is organised around 10 Institutes spread in France which orchestrate its scientific policy, while its 19 divisions represent it in the regions. Mission: The CNRS aims to:  Evaluate and carry out all research capable of advancing knowledge and bringing social, cultural, and economic benefits for society.  Contribute to the promotion and application of research results.  Develop scientific information.  Support research training.  Participate in the analysis of the national and international scientific climate and its potential for evolution in order to develop a national policy. It has a stronger focus on basic scientific research than the JRC. Human Capital: 33,000 researchers, engineers and technicians. Budget: €3.3 billion. Website: http://www.cnrs.fr/index.php Main research themes:

The Max Planck Society (MPG) The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science is an independent, non-profit research organisation. It was founded on February 26, 1948, and is the successor organisation to the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, which was established in 1911. It is not a government institution although it is funded to a large extent by the federal and state governments. Max Planck Institutes focus on research fields that are particularly innovative, or that are especially demanding in terms of funding or time requirements. And their research spectrum is continually evolving: new institutes are established to find answers to seminal, forward-looking scientific questions, while others are closed when, for example, their research field has been widely established at universities. Location: The MPG has its registered seat in Berlin. For the purpose of advising and supporting its 83 institutes and research facilities the Max Planck Society maintains the Administrative Headquarters in Munich, where the offices of the President and the Vice Presidents are located. Mission: The primary goal of the Max Planck Society is to promote research at its own institutes. The currently 83 Max Planck Institutes and facilities conduct basic research in the service of the general public in the natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. Human Capital: On January 1, 2016 the Max Planck Society employed a total of 22.197 staff, of whom 13.276 (this represents nearly 60 percent of the total number of employees) were scientists. There were 4,018 junior and visiting scientists working in the institutes of the Max Planck Society. In the course of 2015, a total of 15,257 Bachelor students, fellows of the International Max Planck Research Schools, PhD students, postdoctoral students, research fellows, and visiting scientists worked at the Max Planck Society. Budget: The financing of the Max Planck Society is predominantly comprised of basic financing from the public sector: Including the MPI for Plasma Physics, the MPG is financed to approximately 1.8 billion euros in 2016. Website: https://www.mpg.de/en Main research themes:

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Oak Ridge National Laboratory was established in 1943 to carry out a critical assignment for the Manhattan Project. Once its wartime mission was successfully accomplished, ORNL took on a new assignment: the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The facilities and expertise assembled for the Manhattan Project expanded to support a nuclear research and development portfolio that extended from basic science to applied technology. As national needs evolved, ORNL developed and applied new capabilities for understanding and solving a wide variety of energy-related problems. Today the lab conducts a broad range of R&D, primarily for the US Department of Energy, but also for other federal agencies and both public and private sponsors. Location: Eastern Tennessee, near Knoxville. Scope and Mission: Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the largest US Department of Energy science and energy laboratory, conducting basic and applied research to deliver transformative solutions to compelling problems in energy and security. ORNL’s diverse capabilities span a broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines, enabling the Laboratory to explore fundamental science challenges and to carry out the research needed to accelerate the delivery of solutions to the marketplace. ORNL supports DOE’s national missions of:  Scientific discovery  Clean energy  Security ORNL is an actor in four major areas of science and technology: neutrons; computing; materials and nuclear. Human capital: 4,559, including scientists and engineers in more than 100 disciplines Users and visiting scientists are annually: 3,200. Budget: $1.5 billion Website: https://www.ornl.gov/ Main research themes:

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) Argonne is a multidisciplinary science and engineering research centre, where talented scientists and engineers work together to answer the biggest questions facing humanity, from how to obtain affordable clean energy to protecting ourselves and our environment. Mission: The laboratory works in concert with universities, industry, and other national laboratories on questions and experiments too large for any one institution to do by itself. Through collaborations here and around the world, it strives to discover new ways to develop energy innovations through science, create novel materials molecule-by- molecule, and gain a deeper understanding of our planet, our climate, and the cosmos. Argonne leverages the top tier research organisations in the Chicago-area to lead discovery and to power innovation in a wide range of core scientific capabilities, from high-energy physics and materials science to biology and advanced computer science. Location: Near Lemont, Illinois, outside Chicago. Human capital: ANL is employing 1623 scientists and engineers, 315 postdoctoral scholars and 457 graduate and undergrad students. Annual budget: In the fiscal year 2015, Argonne had a budget of 760 million USD. Website: http://www.anl.gov/ Main research themes

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) The National Research Council (CNR) is the largest public research institution in Italy, the only one under the Research Ministry performing multidisciplinary activities. It has been founded as legal person on 18 November 1923. Mission: CNR’s mission is to perform research in its own Institutes, to promote innovation and competitiveness of the national industrial system, to promote the internationalisation of the national research system, to provide technologies and solutions to emerging public and private needs, to advice Government and other public bodies, and to contribute to the qualification of human resources. CNR is developing, diffusing, promoting research activities in the main fields of the knowledge, and studying their application for scientific, technological and economic progress of Italy. Location: The offices of the President, the General Manager and Central Administration are located at the Headquarter in Rome. There are 103 research institutes distributed in the big cities of Italy. Human capital: It comprises more than 8,000 employees, of whom more than half are researchers and technologists. Some 4,000 young researchers are engaged in postgraduate studies and research training at CNR within the organisation’s top-priority areas of interest. A significant contribution also comes from research associates: researchers, from Universities or private firms, who take part in CNR’s research activities. Annual budget: Website: https://www.cnr.it/en Main research themes:

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd is the leading research and technology company in the Nordic countries. Since its establishment 70 years ago, VTT has become an important centre of technological expertise and developer of new technologies. The development path of Finland as a whole as well as the events and phenomena of each era are reflected in VTT’s history. It reveals one of the keys to VTT’s success: the organisation has always been able to meet challenges by adapting to changes in its environment. Mission: VTT produces research services that enhance the international competitiveness of companies, society and other customers at the most important stages of their innovation process, and thereby creates the prerequisites for growth, employment and wellbeing. It promotes the realisation of innovative solutions and new businesses by foreseeing already in the strategic research stage the future needs of its customers. Location: The headquarters are located in Otaniemi, Espoo Human capital:  2,192 employees  University degree: 84 %  Doctors and licentiates: 30 %  120 foreign visiting research scientists Annual budget: 272 M€. Website: http://www.vttresearch.com/ Main research themes:

University of Oxford (OX) Oxford is a research university, consisting of the central University and colleges. The central University is composed of academic departments and research centres, administrative departments, libraries and museums. The 38 colleges are self-governing and financially independent institutions, which are related to the central University in a federal system. Mission: The mission of Oxford University in its research activities is:  To maintain originality, significance and rigour in research within a framework of the highest standards of infrastructure, training, and integrity.  To empower the creative autonomy of individuals to address fundamental questions of real significance and applied questions with potential to change the world.  To maintain and develop resources, and invest in subject areas of long- term worth. Location: Oxford (UK) Human capital: 1,800 academics, 5,000 research and research support staff and over 5,600 postgraduate research students are involved.

Annual budget: £1,429.3 million Website: http://www.ox.ac.uk/ Main research themes:

National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) The NIST was founded in 1901 and now part of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST is one of the nation's oldest physical science laboratories. Congress established the agency to remove a major challenge to U.S. industry. From the smart electric power grid and electronic health records to atomic clocks, advanced nanomaterials, and computer chips, innumerable products and services rely in some way on technology, measurement, and standards provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Mission: To promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve quality of life. NIST's core competencies are measurement science, rigorous traceability, development and use of standards Location: NIST operates in two main locations: Gaithersburg, Md. and Boulder, Colo In addition, NIST jointly operates research organisations in four locations:  JILA (link is external), Boulder, Colo., a world-class physics research institute jointly operated by NIST and the University of Colorado at Boulder  Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research (IBBR), Rockville, Md., an interdisciplinary partnership in cutting-edge biotechnology between NIST and the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute  Joint Quantum Institute (JQI), College Park, Md., a new institute for advancing quantum physics research that is jointly operated with the University of Maryland  Hollings Marine Laboratory, Charleston, S.C., a national centre for coastal ocean science, in which NIST is one of five federal, state, and university partners. Annual budget: ‎$964 million (2016). Website: https://www.nist.gov/ Main research themes:

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) was founded in 1900 "for standardising and verifying instruments, for testing materials, and for the determination of physical constants." For over a century NPL has contributed scientific and technological leadership in the physical sciences, as well as in materials science, computing, and bioscience. It is one of the oldest standardising laboratories in the world. Location: Teddington, Middlesex, UK Mission: The NPL is the UK's National Measurement Institute, and is a world-leading centre of excellence in developing and applying the most accurate measurement standards, science and technology available. Its mission is to provide the measurement capability that underpins the UK's prosperity and quality of life. Human capital: 650 employees. Annual budget: Website: http://www.npl.co.uk/ Main research themes:

University of Cambridge (CU) The University of Cambridge is a public research university in Cambridge, England. Founded in 1209, Cambridge is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world and the world's fourth-oldest surviving university. Its reputation for outstanding academic achievement is known world-wide and reflects the intellectual achievement of its students, as well as the world-class original research carried out by the staff of the University and the Colleges. Location: Cambridge, UK Human capital: Academic staff: 6,645 Administrative staff: 3,178 Students 19,515 of which Postgraduates: 7,285 Annual budget: £5.89 billion Website: http://www.cam.ac.uk/ Main research themes:

Austrian Research Center (ARC) renamed Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT) The Austrian Research Centers have recently been renamed and are nowadays called: the Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT). AIT provides research and technological development to realise basic innovations for the next generation of infrastructure related technologies in the fields of health & environment, energy, mobility and safety & security. These technological research areas are supplemented by the competence in foresight & policy development. As a national and international network node at the interface of science and industry AIT enables innovation through its scientific- technological expertise, market experience, tight customer relationships and high quality research infrastructure. Location: The Austrian Institute of Technology is an Austrian application-oriented R&D company, employing more than 850 people in various locations across Austria. It has five independent research departments: Mobility, Energy, Health & Environment, Safety & Security, Foresight & Policy Development covering the following areas. Mission: The AIT Austrian Institute of Technology takes a leading position in the Austrian innovation system and a key role in Europe as the RTO focusing on the key infrastructure topics of the future. AIT provides research and technological development to realise basic innovations for the next generation of infrastructure related technologies in the fields of Health & Environment, Energy, Mobility and Digital Safety & Security. These technological research areas are supplemented by competences in the area of Innovation Systems. As a national and international network node at the interface of science and industry AIT enables innovation through its scientific-technological expertise, market experience, tight customer relationships and high quality research infrastructure. Human capital: More than 850 people. Annual budget: € 124.9 millions Website: http://www.ait.ac.at/ Main research themes:

Netherlands Organisation for applied scientific research (TNO) The Netherlands Organisation for applied scientific research TNO, was founded by law in 1932 to enable business and government to apply knowledge. As an organisation regulated by public law, it is independent: not part of any government, university or company. Location: TNO is headquartered in The Hague. Other locations include: Delft, Rijswijk, Leiden, Groningen, Apeldoorn, Helmond, Soesterberg, Utrecht, Den Helder, Zeist, Enschede and Eindhoven. TNO also has two international branch offices in Doha (Qatar) and Aruba. Mission: TNO is a major player in a growing international network comprised of leading scientific institutes, companies with ambitious development profiles, universities and other partners in knowledge. TNO focus on transitions or changes in five social themes:  Industry: from economic stagnation to growth in high-technology industry  Healthy Living: from illness and treatment to health and behaviour  Defence, Safety & Security: from a wide range of threats to controllable risks  Urbanisation: from urbanisation bottlenecks to urban vitality  Energy: from conventional sources to sustainable energy systems. Human capital: 3,000 employees.

Annual budget: Website: https://www.tno.nl/en/ Main research themes:

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Born in the wake of elevated concern about environmental pollution, EPA was established on December 2, 1970 to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. Since its inception, EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people. Location: Headquarters are located in Washington, D.C., United States. And there are 10 regional offices located across the country. Mission: The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment. Human capital: About 15,000 employees. Annual budget: 8.2 billion USD (2014). Website: https://www3.epa.gov/

Main research themes:

Group 2 comparators The French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) The CEA provides the public authorities and the industry with the expertise and innovation needed to develop improved nuclear power generation systems. Location: The CEA is established in ten centres spread throughout France. Mission: CEA is a key player in research, development and innovation in four main areas:  defence and security,  nuclear energy (fission and fusion),  technological research for industry,  fundamental research in the physical sciences and life sciences. Drawing on its widely acknowledged expertise, the CEA actively participates in collaborative projects with a large number of academic and industrial partners. Human Capital: The CEA had a workforce of 15,770 in 2014, of which 11,326 for the civil sector and 4,444 for the defence sector. Annual budget: 4.1 billion euros Website: http://www.cea.fr/english Main research themes:

Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) he Japan Atomic Energy Agency was formed October 1, 2005 by a merger of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) and the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC). Location: The headquarters are located in Tokai-mura, Japan. And there are 13 R&D institutes/Centres across Japan. Mission: The JAEA is a Japanese organisation that seeks to research, promote, and monitor the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It is an Independent Administrative Institution. The scope of agency includes:  Basic research of nuclear energy  Promotion of research and development results  Human resource development  Study and analysis of safety regulation, nuclear disaster prevention, international non-proliferation, etc. Human capital: Permanent Staff: 4,386 people as of October 2005. Annual budget: N/A Website: http://www.jaea.go.jp/english/ Main research themes:

Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) CAS was established on November 1, 1949, in Beijing, where it is headquartered. It was formed from several existing scientific institutes and soon welcomed over 200 returning scientists who contributed to CAS the high-level expertise they had acquired abroad. Location: The CAS has its headquarters in Beijing. There are 124 Institutions directly under the CAS by the end of 2012, with 104 research institutes, five universities & supporting organisations located across China. Mission: The Chinese Academy of Sciences is the linchpin of China’s drive to explore and harness high technology and the natural sciences for the benefit of China and the world. Comprising a comprehensive research and development network, a merit-based learned society and a system of higher education, CAS brings together scientists and engineers from China and around the world to address both theoretical and applied problems using world-class scientific and management approaches. Human capital: CAS has a staff of 67,900, including about 56,000 professional researchers. Of these, approximately 22,800 are research professors or associate professors. By 2020, CAS hopes to have a few thousand leading scientists working for the organisation. Annual budget: Its annual budget for 2013 was US$ 5.4 billion. Website: http://english.cas.cn/ Main research themes:

Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) Dr Bhabha established the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) for carrying out nuclear science research in 1945. To intensify the effort to exploit nuclear energy for the benefit of the nation, Dr Bhabha established the Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (AEET) in January 1954 for multidisciplinary research programme essential for the ambitious nuclear programme of India. In 1966, AEET was renamed Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). BARC is the mother of the R&D institutions such as IGCAR, RRCAT, VECC, etc., which carry out pioneering research on nuclear and accelerator technologies and industrial establishments such as NPCIL, NFC, ECIL, etc., spearheading nuclear power production, materials technology, electronics & instrumentation Location: BARC is based in Trombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra. Mission: BARC's core mandate is to sustain peaceful applications of nuclear energy, primarily for power generation. It manages all facets of nuclear power generation, from theoretical design of reactors, computerised modelling and simulation, risk analysis, development and testing of new reactor fuel materials, etc. It also conducts research in spent fuel processing, and safe disposal of nuclear waste. Its other research focus areas are applications for isotopes in industries, medicine, agriculture, etc. BARC operates a number of research reactors across the country. Human capital: Annual budget: 31.59 billion INR (US$470 million, 2015–2016). Website: http://www.barc.gov.in/ Main research themes:

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) (German: Karlsruher Institut für Technologie) is a public research university and one of the largest research and education institutions in Germany. KIT was created in 2009 when the University of Karlsruhe (Universität Karlsruhe), founded in 1825 as public research university and also known as 'Fridericiana', merged with the Karlsruhe Research Center Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, which was originally established as a national nuclear research center (Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe, or KfK) in 1956. KIT is one of the leading universities in the Engineering and Natural Sciences in Europe, ranking sixth overall in citation impact. KIT is a member of the TU9 German Institutes of Technology e.V. As part of the German Universities Excellence Initiative KIT was accredited with the excellence status in 2006. Location: KIT is distributed over several locations. While the campus north is situated in the administrative district of Karlsruhe near Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, the campus south is about 10 km away in the heart of the city of Karlsruhe. Moreover, there are further locations in the city of Karlsruhe, as well as in the city of Dresden, Garmisch- Partenkirchen and Ulm. Mission: KIT combines the traditions of a renowned technical university and a major large-scale research institution in a very unique way. In research and education, KIT assumes responsibility for contributing to the sustainable solution of the grand challenges that face the society, industry, and the environment. For this purpose, KIT uses its financial and human resources with maximum efficiency. The scientists of KIT communicate the contents and results of their work to society. Engineering sciences, natural sciences, the humanities, and social sciences make up the scope of subjects covered by KIT. In high interdisciplinary interaction, scientists of these disciplines study topics extending from the fundamentals to application and from the development of new technologies to the reflection of the relationship between man and technology. For this to be accomplished in the best possible way, KIT’s research covers the complete range from fundamental research to close-to-industry, applied research and from small research partnerships to long-term large-scale research projects. Scientific sincerity and the striving for excellence are the basic principles of our activities. Human capital: Employees 2015: 9,315  Education and research: 5.859  Professors: 355  Foreign guest scientists: 999  Non-scientific staff: 3.456  Trainees: 471 Annual budget: Budget 2014: Euro 847 million  Federal funds: Euro 257 million  State funds: Euro 221 million  Third-party funds: Euro 369 million Website: http://www.kit.edu/english/

Main research themes:

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Los Alamos National Laboratory has played a role in some of the most transformational discoveries of the 20th and 21st centuries. In 1943, scientists gathered on remote mesa tops in New Mexico for a secret project that would help end World War II. LANL primary mission since then has been to care for the United States’ stockpile of nuclear weapons. But this primary mission leads to a wealth of advances in science and technology. Location: New Mexico, United States. Mission: The Lab's mission is to develop and apply science and technology to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent; reduce global threats; and solve other emerging national security and energy challenges. Human capital: Total employees: 10,500, 17 % hold master’s degrees, 21 % have earned a PhD These figures include approximately: Los Alamos National Security, LLC: 6,850 Centerra-LA (Guard Force): 300 Contractors: 400 Students: 1,100 Post doctoral researchers: 350 Annual budget: Approx. $2.45 billion  65 % Weapons programs  7 % Nonproliferation programs  5 % Safeguards and Security  7 % Environmental Management  4 % DOE Office of Science  2 % Energy and other programs  10 % Work for Others Website: http://www.lanl.gov/ Main research themes:

Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) The Paul Scherrer Institute, PSI, is the largest research institute for natural and engineering sciences within Switzerland. It performs world-class research in three main subject areas: Matter and Material; Energy and the Environment; and Human Health. By conducting fundamental and applied research, we work on long-term solutions for major challenges facing society, industry and science. Location: PSI is part of the ETH Domain, with the other members being the two Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology, ETH Zurich and EPFL Lausanne, as well as Eawag (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology), Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science & Technology) and WSL (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research). The Paul Scherrer Institute is located in the Canton of Aargau, in the municipal areas of Villigen and Würenlingen on both sides of the River Aare. Mission: PSI develops, builds and operates complex large research facilities. Every year, more than 2500 scientists from Switzerland and around the world come to PSI to use our unique facilities to carry out experiments that are not possible anywhere else. Human capital: PSI had roughly 2000 employees at the end of 2015. One quarter of this figure was accounted for by postdoctoral students, doctoral students and undergraduates. A total of 39.5 % of the positions are held by scientists. 49 % of the positions were occupied by technicians and engineers. Annual budget: It has an annual budget of approximately CHF 333 million (in 2015), and is primarily financed by the Swiss Confederation. 13, 8 and 20 % of its research expenditures is devoted to Nuclear Energy and Safety, Particle Physics Research and Energy research respectively. Website: https://www.psi.ch/ Main research themes:

Julich Research Center (RCJ) Forschungszentrum Jülich (Jülich Research Centre) is a member of the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres and is one of the largest interdisciplinary research centres in Europe. It was founded on 11 December 1956 by the state of North Rhine-Westphalia as a registered association, before it became 'Kernforschungsanlage Jülich GmbH' or Nuclear Research Centre Jülich in 1967. In 1990, the name of the association was changed to 'Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH'. It has close collaborations with RWTH Aachen in the form of Jülich-Aachen Research Alliance (JARA) Location: Forschungszentrum Jülich is situated in the middle of the Stetternich Forest in Jülich (Kreis Düren, Rheinland). Mission: Society needs solutions from research. These solutions must be based on completely new ways of thinking and can only be realised using state-of-the-art research tools. This is the task that Forschungszentrum Jülich has set itself: key technologies for the 21st century. The Julich Research Center focuses on key technologies in the areas of energy and environment, information and brain research. Human capital: Employees in total: 5,768. 3,753 of whom are scientists and technical personnel. 2,074 of whom have scientific training including PhD students, scholarship holders and undergraduates/postgraduates. In addition this number comprises 111 joint appointments with universities. Technical personnel number 1679. visiting scientists: 907. Annual budget: Balance Sheet 2014: Revenues: € 525.4 million (third party funding: € 191.5). Website: http://www.fz-juelich.de/portal/EN/Home/home_node.html Main research themes:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Livermore's defining responsibility is ensuring the safety, security and reliability of the nation's nuclear deterrent. Yet LLNL's mission is broader than stockpile stewardship, as dangers ranging from nuclear proliferation and terrorism to energy shortages and climate change threaten national security and global stability. The Laboratory's science and engineering are being applied to achieve breakthroughs for counterterrorism and non-proliferation, defence and intelligence, energy and environmental security. Mission: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has a mission of strengthening the United States' security through development and application of world-class science and technology to:  Enhance the nation's defense.  Reduce the global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.  And respond with vision, quality, integrity and technical excellence to scientific issues of national importance. Location: Livermore, California USA. Human Capital: 6,300 employees (including term employees and post-doctoral fellows) 2,700 scientists and engineers (more than 40 % of whom are PhDs) 700 facility users, visiting scientists, teachers and students Annual budget: 1.5 billion USD Website: https://www.llnl.gov/ Main research themes:

Annex 5 – JRC and comparators for all nuclear research fields The analysis presented in this report was restricted to the subfield of Nuclear Science and Technology because this subfield was deemed most representative of JRC research activity. There are several other nuclear research related subfields: PHYSICS, NUCLEAR; CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR and RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING in which the JRC has some activity. There is overlap between the different categories, but without double counting the total publication output of the JRC would be 1023 rather than 773 publications if all subfields are considered in combination. Several other comparator organisations are, however, considerably more active in these other subfields than the JRC is. For example the publication output of the CNRS increases more than 5-fold, whereas that of the CEA and PSI (almost) double. As indicated the citation based impact metrics for the JRC in these other fields are comparable to the NST field, so that a focus on the NST field does not unduly flatter / disfavours the JRC. For comparing the JRC, it does however seem best to focus on the subfield that is most representative of its research activity. Table A5.1 JRC publication output all nuclear fields Web of science Research Area27 documents

All nuclear fields 1,023

NST 773 PHYSICS, NUCLEAR BEYOND NST 153 CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR BEYOND NST 95 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING BEYOND NST 195

27 The sum total of these categories is higher than 1,023. This is because apart from the overlap between each of the categories and NST, there is also overlap between the other categories. I.e. some double counting remains in the individual categories where this has been accounted for in the total.