More than ten years have already passed since the issue of Japan's "stagnating research performance" became a serious policy issue, and various analyses have been carried out to clarify, to some extent, what the factors are. However, the causal relationship has not yet been fully elucidated.

In thinking about causality, there is a tendency towards an "availability bias", whereby we jump to the factors that come immediately to mind. For example, it used to be almost universally accepted that the national university reform in 2004 was the cause of Japan's ‘research performance stagnation'. However, subsequent analysis suggests that there are other factors and complex causal relationships, and a simple ‘university-reform causation theory' is no longer sufficient.

In considering more essential factors, it is also necessary to consider causal chains. For example, statistical data for the last 20 years or so suggest that the decrease in research time of university faculties has had a negative impact on research performance. However, it is natural to assume that the decline in research time of university faculties is itself a phenomenon caused by some other factor, and as such, more fundamental factors should be questioned.

Another challenge is how to deal with causal relationships that have not been adequately tested. Such relationships are often used as ‘evidence' in policy-making processes, and caution is needed to avoid the adoption of flawed policies. However, policy researchers are often too cautious in stating causal relationships and remain narrow-minded. It may be important to consider causal relationships, even if they are hypothetical.

The issue of Japan's ‘research capacity stagnation' is complex and our understanding of it is far from complete. I hope that the special features in this issue will stimulate discussion within the Japanese science and technology policy community.

The National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) annually publishes the "Science and Technology Indicators" as foundational resource for systematically understanding Japan's science and technology activities based on objective and quantitative data. Among these, the "highly cited papers (Top 10% papers)" often gain attention in policy documents and media. However, with the rise of China and countries in the Global South, the meaning of this indicator has changed over time. Moreover, this indicator reflects only one aspect of research capability and does not represent Japan's overall research capability. Additionally, output indicators provide a snapshot of research activities at a specific point in time and may not reflect the ability to consistently produce desirable research outcomes in the future. Particularly in discussions about enhancing Japan's future research capabilities, research capability should also suggest potential future performance.

This article introduces changes in the meaning of "highly cited papers" in the first half and introduces NISTEP's efforts to understand the research process from input to output indicators through the "Laboratory Panel Survey" in the second half. Through this, we aim to address the challenges of paper-based indicators and propose a new set of indicators related to research capability.

This article examines Japan's research capability from the perspective of sustainability and ecosystem dynamics. Despite a decade of policies like the "Comprehensive Package for Strengthening Research Capacity and Supporting Young Researchers," improvements remain uncertain. Declining young faculty numbers stem from the system and management of national universities, and unstable employment hinders sustainable talent retention. Additionally, regardless of external funding availability, teaching and administrative burdens are imposed indiscriminately, preventing the optimization of research time. A funding system aligned with shifting balances between block grants and competitive funding is needed. Furthermore, excessive research bureaucracy necessitates adopting international best practices. Past centers of excellence (COE) programs failed to ensure sustainable regional research growth, whereas stable research bases like Joint Usage/Research Centers contribute effectively to the ecosystem. Addressing these systemic issues is essential for Japan's long-term research capability enhancement.

This paper analyzes the role of research data infrastructure in supporting evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) for science, technology, and innovation, and proposes future directions. It clarifies the theoretical relationship between research data infrastructure and EBPM, and offers a comprehensive analysis encompassing international comparisons, case studies, and methodological considerations. The significance lies in elucidating data-driven infrastructure's role in policymaking, particularly its importance and associated challenges.

The framework defines research data infrastructure as central to EBPM's context-mechanism-outcome chain. International comparisons highlight Japan's need for stronger EBPM institutions, integrated data infrastructure, expertise development, and systematic EBPM integration. Case studies show issues including metric overreliance. Methodological considerations address data reliability. An interdisciplinary approach and a socio-technical systems perspective emphasize integrating knowledge, flexible design, stakeholder dialogue, and international cooperation.

Research data infrastructure and EBPM are crucial for policy quality, but require addressing challenges through interdisciplinary and international collaboration, supporting open science, and respecting researcher autonomy.

In Japan, it is said that research performance has declined markedly since the incorporation of national universities. I analyzed this situation by referring to Scopus datasets and financial data from the early 2000s. In addition, I examined the effectiveness of the evidence for strengthening Japan's research capabilities by referring to relevant data from USA, Germany, UK, Italy, Canada and Australia, and conducted survey and analysis on the mechanisms for allocating public funds. The examination was conducted in terms of (1) the scale and sources of funding, (2) disparities between universities and between research fields, (3) mechanisms for allocating public funds, and (4) research evaluation. I this paper, I presented following areas of possible improvements: (1) recognition of the importance of public funding; (2) capacity enhancement of less active research universities, (3) re-examination of the relationship between bloc funding and competitive research funding; and (4) a re-examination of the evaluation system

While the recent decline in Japan's research capabilities and its underlying factors have been widely discussed, one important issue to consider is how large-scale funding programs, launched one after another since the beginning of this century, have affected the research capabilities of Japanese universities. This paper examines how large-scale programs in science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy have been collectively transformed in their objectives and characteristics, and how they have impacted Japan's research capabilities over the past 25 years. Those programs are categorized into four groups, and their long-term trends as well as evaluations that have been given to them are analyzed. Based on this analysis, it is pointed out that, achieving evidence-based planning and implementation of future large-scale programs in STI policy might require being mindful of the plurality of policy objectives and evaluation criteria when designing such programs.

In recent years, university startups play an important role as drivers of innovation. Although R&D in private sector has shifted significantly from large enterprises to startups, US universities have not shifted their research capabilities from basic research to applied research. Various reasons have been discussed for the decline in research capacity of Japanese universities, but the cause comes down to the weakness of universities' financial base. US university finances rely heavily on endowments mostly based on donations from entrepreneurs. An analysis of the sources of R&D expenditures at US universities reveals that, although the federal government continues to be the largest provider of research funds, income from industry-university collaborations is far too small for universities to rely on as a financial source, and that the economic returns for universities' contributions to the creation of new businesses are realized in the form of donations by successful entrepreneurs decades later.

In recent years, research administrators (URAs) have played an increasingly important role as universities contribute to open innovation and address societal challenges. Although over 1,800 URAs are active in Japan, clear evaluation criteria for their diverse functions have yet to be established. This paper provides an international comparison of URAs and quantitatively analyzes their impact, such as facilitating industry-academia collaboration and increasing external research funding. It also highlights their growing role in supporting startup ecosystems, promoting open science, and ensuring research integrity.

To evaluate the expanding roles of URAs, this paper proposes boundary spanning as a framework for understanding their cross-sectoral coordination. Since URA contributions often extend beyond quantifiable metrics, qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods should be improved. Establishing appropriate assessment criteria is crucial for advancing research capacity-building efforts based on EBPM (Evidence-Based Policy Making).

This study clarified the factors that promote the implementation of interdisciplinary research based on the results of a questionnaire survey conducted among university faculty members affiliated with three universities of different sizes and formats. Research conducted by individuals using multiple disciplines is defined as "individual interdisciplinary orientation" and joint research by researchers in multiple fields is defined as "multidisciplinary joint research", and these are the research systems that lead to interdisciplinary research. Statistical analysis reveals that several of the researcher's choices and number of choices of "specialty fields", "research methods", and "research interests" have a significant impact on "individual interdisciplinary orientation" and "multispecialty joint research experience". On the other hand, there are various combinations of affinity fields in multispecialty joint research, and furthermore, there are selected and unselected fields. In order to conduct interdisciplinary research, it is also important for researchers to be aware of the demands of their own specialty fields.

While preparing for the decline of existing businesses, creating new ventures through innovation is crucial but often overshadowed by the focus on current operations. Ambidexterity, which balances exploiting existing businesses with exploring new opportunities, has emerged as a key strategy. This study models ambidexterity's structure to simulate its impact on corporate performance under various scenarios. Previous models have not adequately captured the transition from existing to new businesses or differences in organizational approaches. To address this gap, this study introduces the EE Matrix, representing a company's knowledge across two dimensions—technology and customer—and illustrating the shift from current operations to new ventures. Expert interviews confirm the effectiveness of this structural model. The study contributes theoretically by demonstrating how ambidexterity's contextual and structural approaches affect performance and how their combined application can enhance outcomes. It also offers practical insights for addressing innovation challenges in management.