Using bibliometric techniques, we evaluate the contribution of current academic research to the advancement of sustainable development agenda as expressed in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) targets . We focus on four knowledge domains highly relevant to the ethos of sustainable development, each with a distinct approach, to finding a balance between ecological and economic systems when it comes to development: “Circular Economy” (CE), “Degrowth” (DG), Green Growth” (GG), and research specifically addressing sustainable development goals that we refer to as “SDG Research” (SDGR). We evaluate two dimensions: scope – the extent to which the full range of UN Sustainable Develpment (SD) Agenda 2030 topics expressed in targets and indicators for each SDG are explored; and intensity- the quantity of research focusing on each SDG. Our analysis demonstrates that the four knowledge domains examined: CE, DG, GG and the emerging domain labelled SDGR, have made important contributions to research related with the 17 UN SDGs. However, these contributions are heterogeneous with important differences according to the SDGs. We find that academic research does not fully align with the policy agenda, identifying several gaps. The disparate coverage of SDGs priorities by academics may compromise the progress and implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 2030.

使用文献计量技术，我们评估了当前的学术研究对联合国可持续发展目标（SDGs）目标所表达的对可持续发展议程的促进作用。我们专注于与可持续发展的精神高度相关的四个知识领域，每个领域都采用独特的方法，以在发展方面找到生态系统与经济系统之间的平衡：“循环经济”（CE），“ Degrowth”（DG） ，绿色增长”（GG）以及专门针对可持续发展目标的研究，我们称之为“可持续发展目标研究”（SDGR）。我们评估两个维度：范围–探索在每个SDG的目标和指标中表达的《联合国可持续发展（SD）议程2030年议程》的全部主题的范围；和强度-针对每个SDG的研究数量。我们的分析表明，研究的四个知识领域：CE，DG，GG和标有SDGR的新兴领域，为与17个联合国SDG相关的研究做出了重要贡献。然而，根据可持续发展目标，这些贡献是异质的，具有重要的区别。我们发现学术研究与政策议程不完全一致，发现了一些空白。学术界对可持续发展目标优先重点的分散报道可能会损害联合国《 2030年可持续发展议程》的进展和实施。我们发现学术研究与政策议程不完全吻合，发现了一些空白。学术界对可持续发展目标优先重点的分散报道可能会损害联合国《 2030年可持续发展议程》的进展和实施。我们发现学术研究与政策议程不完全一致，发现了一些空白。学术界对可持续发展目标优先重点的分散报道可能会损害联合国《 2030年可持续发展议程》的进展和实施。