29.01.2015 Views

IN CANADA, 2012 Appendices - Council of Canadian Academies

IN CANADA, 2012 Appendices - Council of Canadian Academies

IN CANADA, 2012 Appendices - Council of Canadian Academies

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

4 The State <strong>of</strong> Science and Technology in Canada, <strong>2012</strong><br />

Appendix 1 Description <strong>of</strong> Bibliometric Data<br />

and Indicators<br />

This appendix provides additional details on the bibliometric data and indicators<br />

used in this assessment. The indicators were produced for Canada, its provinces,<br />

and leading countries by field, sub-field and over time (1999–2004 and 2005–2010<br />

aggregated; and 1997–2010 by year) unless otherwise indicated. Data for all<br />

indicators were only produced where appropriate considering the lower thresholds<br />

at which data would become unreliable or uninformative; generally, no statistics<br />

were computed for bodies <strong>of</strong> research with a sample size <strong>of</strong> less than 30 papers.<br />

Data Source<br />

The Scopus database from Elsevier was selected to generate the bibliometric data<br />

used for this assessment. Scopus was selected instead <strong>of</strong> Thomson Reuters’ Web<br />

<strong>of</strong> Science (WoS) primarily due to its broader coverage <strong>of</strong> the scientific literature<br />

in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. Scholars in these fields publish more in<br />

their own languages and in journals with national distribution than do researchers<br />

in the natural sciences. Because the linguistic bias <strong>of</strong> Scopus towards scientific<br />

literature authored in English is less pronounced than it is in the WoS, it is more<br />

suited to the assessment <strong>of</strong> the work in the social sciences, humanities, and arts.<br />

In addition, Scopus links the authors <strong>of</strong> papers to their institutional addresses,<br />

which significantly reduces the time required to build researchers’ publication<br />

portfolios as well as the risk <strong>of</strong> falsely assigning a paper to a researcher. As such,<br />

the investigation <strong>of</strong> researchers’ migration patterns is easier and more reliable<br />

with Scopus. Finally, conference proceedings are broadly covered in Scopus,<br />

whereas in the WoS they are not covered extensively.<br />

Only documents that were peer-reviewed prior to being accepted for publication<br />

were retained in computing the bibliometric indicators used in this report. The<br />

peer-review process ensures that the research is <strong>of</strong> good quality and constitutes<br />

an original contribution to scientific knowledge. These documents are mainly<br />

articles, conference papers, and reviews collectively referred to in this appendix<br />

as “papers.”<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> Publications<br />

This is a count <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> scientific publications (journal articles) based<br />

on full counting <strong>of</strong> papers. In the full counting method, each paper is counted<br />

once for each entity listed in the address field. For example, if a paper is authored<br />

by two researchers from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, one from<br />

University College London, and one from the University <strong>of</strong> Liverpool, the paper<br />

will be counted once for the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, once for the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!