Abstract
Understanding how structural change drives long-run growth requires jointly considering the dynamics of productive and scientific specialisations, and science-industry alignment. This paper develops and tests a unified framework that integrates evolutionary, structuralist, complexity, and innovation-systems perspectives to assess how productive and scientific specialisations, science-industry alignment, diversification, and global value chain integration shape economic performance. To operationalize this framework, we construct new indicators, including a Science-Industry Matching (SIM) index, measures of dynamic entry and relatedness density, and specialisation-based diversity indices, and apply them to a panel of up to 142 countries over 2000-2018/2023. Estimation relies on country fixed effects with Driscoll-Kraay standard errors to address heteroskedasticity, autocorrelation, and cross-sectional dependence. The results reveal that persistent specialisation in high- and medium-high-tech industries fosters growth, while low-tech dependence constrains it. Scientific specialisation in enabling fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and energy/environmental sciences supports growth, but excessive concentration risks lock-in. Science-industry alignment enhances growth in advanced economies with strong absorptive capacity but penalises weaker systems. Industrial diversification often dilutes resources, whereas scientific diversification consistently promotes growth by broadening the knowledge base for recombination. Finally, integration into global value chains is growth-enhancing in developing economies, while advanced economies can sustain higher domestic value added without significant penalties.

Abstract
This study provides a comprehensive quantitative review of the determinants of aggregate productivity growth using bibliometric and network-based methods. Drawing on 523 peer-reviewed articles published between 1973 and 2024 in Scopus and Web of Science, the study systematically maps the intellectual foundations, research fronts, and conceptual evolution of the field. Results show that research has remained overwhelmingly macro-focused, with 85%-90% of studies addressing aggregate-level determinants. Innovation, institutions, and technology diffusion dominate the literature, while firm-level (microeconomic) explanations, though increasing since the mid-2000s, remain secondary, largely addressing resource allocation. Competition, firm-level innovation, and organizational capabilities are underexplored despite their relevance for aggregate outcomes. By combining co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and keyword co-occurrence analyses, the study reveals the multilevel structure of productivity research, illustrating how macro theories, meso-level sectoral mechanisms, and micro-level firm dynamics interact. These findings highlight the limits of macro-centric explanations of productivity slowdowns and underscore the need to explore cross-level mechanisms, firm heterogeneity, and institutional interactions. This study offers a novel methodological benchmark and a structured agenda for research and policy, aiming to enhance productivity growth.

Abstract
Since its founding in 2003, the Journal of Academic Ethics (JAET) has established itself as a central venue for scholarship on the ethical dimensions of higher education, research, and academic governance. Despite its prominence, no systematic analysis has charted the evolution of its intellectual profile over time. This study offers a comprehensive bibliometric overview of JAET's publications from 2003 to 2025, mapping patterns of authorship, citation, and thematic development. The dataset comprises records retrieved from Scopus for the period 2005-2025 and from JAET's own archives for 2003-2004. Using bibliometric indicators and network visualizations generated with VOSviewer, the analysis identifies key shifts in the journal's conceptual orientation, from early emphases on misconduct and plagiarism toward broader engagements with institutional integrity, governance, diversity, and the ethics of digital transformation. A narrative comparison with related journals situates JAET's distinctive integrative role in linking philosophical reflection with empirical inquiry and policy discourse. The findings reveal increasing interdisciplinarity, international collaboration, and methodological diversification, marking the maturation of academic ethics as a field. Looking forward, emerging challenges such as artificial intelligence, open science, and global research governance underscore JAET's continuing function as both a barometer and catalyst of ethical thought in academia.

Abstract

Abstract