China leads, Europe lags: Global energy economy research reveals sharp divide

In recent years, global efforts to transition from carbon-heavy systems to cleaner, more resilient energy infrastructures have intensified. Yet, as nations and institutions invest in renewable technologies, financial frameworks, and environmental policies, questions persist about whether academic inquiry is keeping pace with the real-world transformations it seeks to inform.

A new scientometric review, “Charting the Global Energy Economy Research: Trends, Gaps, and Paradigm Shifts”, offers the most comprehensive assessment to date of global research trajectories in the field of energy economy. Based on over 400,000 data points and employing artificial intelligence to process large-scale bibliometric records, the study reveals clear leaders, stagnating trends, and underexplored intersections with emerging technologies.

The findings are published in the journal Energies.

Is the energy economy field expanding or flatlining?

The study was aimed at testing three hypotheses surrounding the growth, stability, and multidimensional requirements of the global energy economy research landscape. The first hypothesis, that research activity in the field has been steadily increasing, was affirmed through strong statistical evidence. Between 2015 and 2023, the number of publications related to energy economy grew at a consistent rate, with a correlation coefficient (R²) of 0.9670 indicating a near-perfect linear relationship. This growth trajectory was not linear across all sub-periods. Sharp accelerations were recorded between 2018 and 2021, suggesting that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic may have catalyzed rather than inhibited scholarly productivity in energy-related topics.

However, this expansion showed signs of flattening after 2021. A comparative analysis of energy economy publications as a proportion of broader economic research indicated a shift. Until 2021, this share was increasing steadily, driven by a growing emphasis on sustainability and decarbonization. Post-2021, however, the trend line leveled off, suggesting that energy economy has reached a saturation point relative to general economic research. This pattern led researchers to reject the second hypothesis, which proposed uninterrupted linear growth without anomalies.

The authors attribute this inflection point to several converging factors. First, the completion of major post-pandemic energy policy reforms may have led to a temporary research plateau. Second, global disruptions, particularly Russia’s war in Ukraine, likely influenced national energy agendas and publication priorities. The trend indicates not a decline in interest, but a transition into a phase of stability where the volume of output remains high but no longer accelerates rapidly.

Who dominates the field and where are the gaps?

A deep bibliometric analysis covering the years 2021 to 2024 revealed not just where research is being conducted, but which countries and journals are shaping the global discourse. China emerged as the undisputed leader, with its researchers producing significantly more publications than peers in India, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. China's dominance extended beyond volume; it also held the most central position in global co-authorship networks, often acting as the hub for collaborative projects across Asia and beyond.

India showed a consistent upward trend in output, while the United States and the United Kingdom maintained stable publication levels. Italy, while ranking in the top five for volume, did not perform as strongly in terms of citation impact. According to the authors, this disparity suggests that while Italian researchers are active, their work is not influencing the field as significantly as research from other leading nations.

Journal analysis revealed a similar dichotomy. Sustainability (Switzerland) led in publication volume, followed by Journal of Cleaner Production, E3S Web of Conferences, Energies, and Energy. Notably, specialized journals such as Energy Economics did not feature prominently, ranking only seventh in terms of output. This underrepresentation of domain-specific outlets points to a structural bottleneck, possibly due to high article processing charges, editorial backlogs, or a shortage of specialized venues, which may be limiting the dissemination of highly focused research.

When the analysis shifted to citation impact, the hierarchy changed. Journal of Cleaner Production and Sustainability were the most cited, while Energy and Energies also performed well. However, E3S Web of Conferences had notably low citation metrics, raising questions about its influence despite high publication numbers. By calculating the average number of citations per article (M(x)) for 2024, the study confirmed that Journal of Cleaner Production and Energy lead in research influence, with averages exceeding two citations per paper. In contrast, Sustainability and Energies fell below one, and E3S Web of Conferences trailed significantly at just 0.13.

These findings not only highlight disparities between publication volume and impact but also underscore the need for researchers to consider strategic journal placement if they aim to maximize visibility and influence.

What challenges and opportunities lie ahead?

The third hypothesis, that a successful transition to sustainable energy requires a confluence of technology, policy, and social engagement, was supported by a detailed bibliometric keyword analysis. Drawing from the 2000 most-cited papers using terms like “energy” and “economy,” researchers mapped the thematic clusters dominating the field. The analysis identified four interrelated keyword ecosystems:

• A red cluster emphasizing “sustainable development,” “energy utilization,” and “economic analysis,” suggesting strong integration of environmental and economic perspectives;
• A green cluster focusing on “renewable energy,” “alternative energy,” and “energy resources,” indicative of a policy- and solutions-oriented research base;
• A blue cluster centered on “biomass,” “fossil fuels,” and “circular economy,” revealing ongoing interest in legacy systems and transitional models;
• A yellow cluster bridging technical and normative dimensions through terms like “carbon neutrality” and “environmental sustainability.”

Despite the comprehensive scope, one striking omission stood out: keywords reflecting the sixth technological paradigm, particularly artificial intelligence, big data, and digital management, were absent from the top ranks. This absence signals a critical gap. As the energy sector becomes increasingly dependent on smart systems, predictive analytics, and autonomous operations, the lack of integration with cutting-edge computational tools could hinder progress. The authors argue that this void presents a unique opportunity for future research.

The study provides a roadmap for scholars, institutions, and policymakers. It urges researchers to diversify their publication strategies and align with high-impact outlets. Universities, particularly in Eastern Europe, are encouraged to invest in capacity building to overcome structural disadvantages in global rankings. Policymakers are advised to design frameworks that not only incentivize clean energy adoption but also facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and technological modernization.