UNITED KINGDOM

OCTOBER 2011
JONATHAN ADAMS

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT

EVIDENCE

THE AUTHOR Jonathan Adams is Director, Research Evaluation. He was a founding Director of Evidence Ltd, the UK specialist on research performance analysis and interpretation and was formerly a member of the science policy staff of the UK Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

This report has been published by Evidence, a Thomson Reuters business 103 Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9DF, UK T/ +44 113 384 5680 F/ +44 113 384 5874 E/ scientific.enquiries.evidence@thomson.com

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters ISBN: 1 904431 30 5

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT UNITED KINGDOM

The UK spends 4% of the worlds Gross Expenditure on R&D on 6% of the worlds researchers who are authors on 8% of the worlds research articles and reviews. These papers attract 11% of the worlds citations and so create 14% of the worlds highly cited output. Those exceptional articles include 17% of the worlds research papers with more than 500 citations and 20% of those with more than 1000 citations. Its average research impact now surpasses that of the USA. Despite this outstanding performance in terms of research efficiency, effectiveness and excellence the level of private-sector research investment in the UK is surprisingly low and has fallen relative to comparators. The innovative capacity and potential of the UK is therefore not matched by its engagement with economic competitiveness, but this is not the fault of the research base.

INTRODUCTION
In this Thomson Reuters Global Research Report we draw on the data resources of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) to demonstrate the powerful information that can be derived from overview analyses of the wider research process that includes the funding, people and training that lead to Thomson Reuters data on research outputs. This Global Research Report focuses on the international comparative performance of the UK research base as an example of the rich information that comes from integrating data sources. The headline figures for the UK, on which we develop background detail within the report, are worth noting right at the outset. This integrated approach takes us into the core of Thomson Reuters research evaluation and underpins national policy and institutional strategy. Research output is the critical product of the research base but to support effective management it is desirable to build a picture of the wider research process and consider the relationships among input, capacity and output. Research base, as an entity, requires a definition. It includes both the public and private sectors. Both are innovative and problem-solving, and the interaction between them is a critical part of success. The public sector trains highly skilled people and creates much original, curiosity-driven research while the private sector enables definition of key challenges, provides investment and exploits emergent applications leading to innovative processes and products. In this report, we compare the UK with four key G7 comparators the USA, Japan, Germany and France and with China. Collectively, these six countries now account for almost two-thirds of the global total of research publications indexed in Thomson Reuters Web of KnowledgeSM. France and Germany are the UKs major partners in the European Research Area. The USA and Japan are its key collaborators in other regions. China is the new dynamic factor in the global geography of science, as we have reported previously. Its rapid rise demonstrates a different model in research policy and demands a reanalysis of the certainties that underpinned the trans-Atlantic research axis of the last half-century.1

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT

HOW MUCH DOES THE UK SPEND ON RESEARCH?

The total resources of a nation are indexed by its Gross Domestic Product. The part of this which is invested, from all sectors, in research and development (R&D) is called the Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD). GERD can be disaggregated into public sector elements, including expenditure in the Higher Education sector, and into the R&D performed in the private sector, called Business Enterprise expenditure on R&D (BERD). The relative investment made by each country can be looked at in terms of its total spend (GERD for research) and in terms of that spend as a share of the overall resources (GERD as a share of GDP). We can also look at each nations expenditure in terms of its share of the total global spend on R&D recorded by OECD. UK investment in R&D has risen in real terms by about one-third from 1991 to 2009, most of that in the period after 1998. This has not kept pace with the rising pattern of investment globally, however, and the UKs share of OECD GERD fell from 5.30% in 1991 to 4.15% in 2008. Frances relative GERD also fell, as did Germanys although to a lesser extent, but US investment remained at about 42% of OECD GERD over the same period.
FIGURE 1 Gross Expenditure on Research & Development (GERD) as a share of the total GERD from OECD countries. Data are taken from OECDs MSTI product and all national data are adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity, using constant 2000 prices in the original data. Note the separate axis for the USA.

DATA SOURCES

We have looked across the last two decades, from 1991 to 2008 for some of the OECD data and through to 2010 for the Thomson Reuters data. Data on funding inputs, on researchers and workforce and on research training are taken from the databases of OECD. The OECD is the main provider of internationally comparable data on research and development. Its two products on the measurement of science and technology, Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) and Research and Development Statistics (RDS), provide the basis for much of the data used in any sound international analyses.2 Data for some countries are missing from some OECD tables. Where necessary and feasible, OECD data has been supplemented by national data sourced from government or authoritative third-party data, which for the UK includes the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and the former Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reforms (BERR) SET Statistics. Financial data are given in units of Million constant US$ at 2000 prices and corrected for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). In other words, the financial data are expected to be comparable between years and countries. Where translation from Million current PPP$ to Million constant PPP$ was required, OECDs Implicit GDP Price Indices table (Annex B to MSTI) was used. Where translation from National Currency to Purchasing Power Parities (national currency per dollar) was required, OECDs Purchasing Power Parities table (Annex C to MSTI) was used.

The interpretation of OECD science and technology data is governed by the Frascati Manual, which has become the internationally recognised methodology for collecting and using R&D statistics.3 China is a relatively recent entrant to the OECD statistical database and it is not entirely clear that all data from China are at present fully in accord with the standard definitions that are generally in use. At a broad level, however, there is no doubting the overall trend in the China data although some of the definitions of workforce components appear to be less comparable. The OECD Education and Training Database provides internationally comparable data on key aspects of education systems. It makes use of data collected by UNESCO, OECD and Eurostat. The interpretation of OECD education data is governed by the OECD publication Data Collection on Education Systems: Definitions, Explanations, and Instructions.4 China does not supply data for this purpose; some data values have been inferred. Data on publications, citations, citation impact and the proportion of papers that are relatively highly cited by field and year are available from the databases in the Web of Knowledge. Thomson Reuters Web of Science aggregates the 12,000 journals that it tracks across some 250 subfield categories on the basis of their stated focus and their cited and citing relationships. We also use the 22 broad field categories of Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators database. It should be noted that papers published in multidisciplinary journals such as Nature and Science are selectively assigned to their appropriate fields within Essential Science Indicators.

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT

China saw a quite extraordinary increase in its research investment, which affects all other figures relative to the OECD total. Its GERD grew more than ten-fold in real terms and this meant that its share of the OECD total rose from less than 2% to over 15%. The public sector research base is the primary source of innovative knowledge, the sole source of highly trained people and is thus a key driver of economic competitiveness. To be effective, however, knowledge innovation needs to feed to the private sector so that it can be translated into new processes and products. Past research policy often focused on push from the research base but contemporary policy recognizes the essential pull that the private sector must exercise by recruiting talented people and investing in innovative knowledge processes. Private sector engagement is reflected in BERD. To gain the maximum benefit from a highly competitive research base, we expect to see business investing appropriately where competitiveness reflected in indicators of internationally excellent research- is high. As research performance rises, furthermore, we should expect BERD to rise in tandem. BERD across the OECD rose by around 80% in real terms over the period 1991 through 2008, from $300 Bn to around $550 Bn. Much of this rise was driven by the USA, but BERD in Germany also increased. In China, BERD rose almost 20-fold as the research economy rapidly expanded (as seen in Figure 1). In the UK, by contrast, BERD actually contracted into the mid-90s and then rose slowly through 2000 before leveling off until recently. Given the evidence shown in later Figures of the UKs exceptional research profile, this is counterintuitive behavior. The UK clearly has exceptional research on offer but the market appears to choose not to invest. The data in Table 1 show that BERD in the UK has actually been falling as a share of national wealth, indexed by GDP. Whereas it was close to the OECD average in 1991, it has since declined to around twothirds of that benchmark. The US, Japan and Germany remain comfortably ahead of the average while BERD in China has now risen to match the UK figure.
TABLE 1 Business Enterprise expenditure on R&D (BERD) expressed as a share (%) of Gross Domestic Production (GDP) for the UK and five comparator countries. These data are abstracted from the OECD MSTI database for successive annual returns from 1991 to 2008, the most recent year for which data are available for all countries. 1991 UK China France Germany Japan USA OECD Total 1.36 0.29 1.43 1.71 2.08 1.93 1.48 2000 1.18 0.54 1.34 1.73 2.16 2.02 1.53 2008 1.10 1.08 1.32 1.86 2.70 2.02 1.62

HOW MANY PEOPLE WORK ON UK R&D?

National research capacity may be reflected in a number of indicators, covering both the research base itself and the wider knowledge capacity of the economy as a whole. OECD data identify two key categories of people: broadly defined R&D workers and more specific researchers. In both cases we can look at these groups in relation to the workforce as a whole. The replacement rate of these highly skilled groups is reflected in the numbers of research-competent people being trained, and the primary source of such people is in the universities. There is certainly R&D training elsewhere across the economy, especially in industry, but much of this is technical and specific. The desirable work attribute in a knowledge-based economy is likely to be knowledge competence: the abilities to identify and tackle problems, draw on knowledge from outside, manage solutions and risks, and accommodate uncertainty. The Frascati definitions of researchers are perhaps constrained somewhat in their scope and may capture researcher numbers more effectively in a more traditional economy. There is some indication from our previous studies that this means that researcher numbers are underestimated where there is a shift away from manufacturing. The number of UK workers identified as researchers approximately doubled between 1991 and 2008 to reach around 250,000 people. This was a considerably faster rate of increase than either Germany or the USA, where numbers increased by about one-quarter and one-half respectively over the same period. The consequence of this rise is that OECD data show that the UK now has a significantly higher proportion of its workforce (that is, the part of the potential labour force that is in employment) as research competent. Figure 2 illustrates the rise of the UK curve from below to above OECD average, passing its main EU competitors on the way.

FIGURE 2 Highly skilled employees classified as researchers, indexed as numbers per 1,000 individuals in the total national labour force. Data for the UK and five comparator countries are taken from the OECD MSTI database.

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE BEING TRAINED FOR RESEARCH?

The researcher workforce is fed by the supply of highly skilled people trained in the tertiary education system. The current stock of research-capable staff needs to be at least replaced by a regular flow of new entrants but, in an increasingly knowledgebased economy, the supply should exceed simple replacement so that available skills levels increase and attract appropriate employers. Universities and colleges have a unique role in a knowledge economy in providing that supply. It seems probable that those individuals who train in a knowledge-rich environment get a wider range of opportunities to develop their competencies. As the research excellence of the environment increases, so people are exposed to a wider range of innovative ideas and practices, and are able to experience at firsthand what it is like to be near the cutting edge. This is the transferable experience they then take with them as they move into employment. Graduates and doctoral researchers from leading universities are therefore likely to be at an employment premium. UK PhD output has increased markedly through the period for which data are available, increasing by around one-half. The UK (now around 17,000 PhD awards per year) has moved well ahead of France and is closer to Germany (around 25,000 per year). There is possibly some difference in the exact standards being compared here, as the German PhD course of study tends to be longer in duration than that in the UK and may not be started until greater experience has been obtained. The USA, which is more comparable to the UK, has increased its output substantially in absolute terms, from 45,000 to well over 60,000 PhDs per year, but has in fact increased at a slower rate than the UK. With a fairly stable university system and a constrained research budget in the UK there is clearly only limited capacity to absorb these additional PhDs in academic research. This makes this skilled pool of people available to the wider UK economy, and that should therefore underpin future knowledge competitiveness. That may explain why the profile for UK BERD, which has been weak compared to other countries in the last decade, has recently shown some indication of increasing again as industry starts to exploit the potential of this key labour pool.

FIGURE 3 Doctoral level awards per year for the UK and four comparator countries. UNESCO-OECDEurostat (UOE) data collection on education statistics for graduates from advanced research programmes (doctoral programme definitions vary among countries). These are compiled on the basis of national administrative sources, reported by Ministries of Education or National Statistical Offices and covering all fields of study. The data are available from 1998 for most countries, but there are no standardized data for China.

The Web of Science indexes 12,000 journals, which is probably about one-quarter of the worlds regularly published research serials and is the quarter which captures in excess of 95% of the citations (cross references) among scholarly articles.5 In other words, these journals describe the research that is having the greatest innovative impact. The extent to which a country is represented in this database is therefore an indicator of international regard for its researchers activity. The UK has a well-established academic research base, with some of the worlds oldest and bestknown universities, and we would expect it to be well represented in the Web of Science. The UKs share, along with that of other established economies, is being challenged by the rise of research in countries outside the traditional transAtlantic and G7 axis. We have documented the development of China, Brazil, India and the Middle East in earlier reports in this series.6 UK output rose from about 50,000 to about 90,000 papers per year between 1991 and 2010, a growth rate that was typical of the established research economies after 1990. This rise was outdone by the extraordinary growth of the new economies and particularly by that of China. Including Hong Kong, China produced fewer than 10,000 research papers indexed in the Web of Science in 1991 but by 2007 it had surpassed the UK, Japan and Germany with over 100,000 indexed papers that year. The consequence is that the UKs share of world output is actually falling, as is that of its traditional competitors in Europe. However, the decline of the USA is even faster, because the absolute output of its research base has hardly changed over the last few years (see Figure 4).

WHAT IS THE OUTPUT OF THE UK RESEARCH BASE?

Research outputs are reflected in transferable, useful knowledge. One important indicator is the number of people being trained in a research environment, which is described in the previous section. Another is the body of knowledge published in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals.

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT

FIGURE 4

National research portfolios are not all the same. It has been observed in the past that the UK has a similar balance to that of the USA, which emphasizes biomedical research investment and output over that for physical and material sciences (see Global Research Report: Materials Science and Technology, June 2011). We have noted in our reports to the UK Government that the UK research portfolio favors biological sciences more than its primary EU partners, while Germany tilts toward the physical sciences and France emphasizes mathematics.7 We can illustrate these differences in national portfolios by using Research Footprints to display national share simultaneously by different subject areas. In Figure 5, each countrys share of research output in eight different areas has been scaled against the maximum among the six comparators. This means that the USA is scaled at 1.0 as the most prolific nation in all subjects, at the level of granularity used here. In the physical sciences generally it is already being challenged by China. Although the UK now lags China in most of the physical and technological sciences, it still has a greater share of world output in the biological and environmental sciences. In fact, the UK has a relatively balanced output and its Research Footprint is much more regular than that of the other countries in this analysis. Partly that is an effect of the Web of Science index, which has good Anglophone representation across subjects and may even slightly overemphasise the UKs position in social sciences and in humanities. But it may also be a reflection of the extent to which UK research in social sciences has shifted towards a science paradigm in which journals are now a medium for disseminating scholarly outcomes that have parity with the traditional preference for monographs.8 If there is an area in which the UK has a shortfall in relative volume then it is in the physical sciences and engineering. Within Europe, this area of research is balanced by the activity of France and Germany. Together, these three exhibit a complementarity which strengthens the overall portfolio of the European research area.

The UKs share of research publications indexed in Web of Science, compared with five comparator nations as a share of world output per year between 1991 and 2010. Note the separate axis for the USA.

FIGURE 5 Research Footprints comparing the UKs relative share of world outputs in different fields with four comparator nations. Total volume varies between fields so world share is used rather than paper count to scale each axis, which runs to 20% of world total. The USA has by far the largest share in most fields, except physical sciences, where it is now almost matched by China, and is excluded from this diagram to enable other comparisons to be seen.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE UK RESEARCH BASE?

Quantity is nothing without quality in research performance, so we need to consider the output volumes of each country alongside data on their academic impact. We do this by considering the number of times each research publication is subsequently cited in later publications. Citation counts grow over time and citation rates vary among research disciplines, so when we look at citation counts we need to compare the observed citation count for each paper with the expected average for that field and the year the paper was published. This is referred to as normalising the raw citation counts.

Citation impact is not a direct measure of research quality and should not be seen as such. Normalised citation impact does correlate with other assessments of research quality, however, and so it can be seen as a good indicator of research performance especially for larger samples. The relative international performance of the UK research base has been distinguished by progressive improvement over at least a quarter of a century, since its Research Assessment Exercise was introduced in 1986.9

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT

UK performance is on a rising trajectory, whereas the USA research base has at best plateaued in performance and on some estimates is now in decline. This is despite its great superiority in terms of capacity and volume output. It is evident from Figure 6 that the UK has now overtaken the US on average and that it remains well ahead of Germany and France. Japan has dropped well behind its G7 comparators and its average impact is now similar in performance to China. It should be borne in mind that, as the coverage of world outputs has increased, so the Web of Science database has encompassed a wider range of regional journals. Some of these are relatively unknown in Europe and so have rather lower citation impact than the core of well-established journals likely to be preferred by UK researchers. This accounts, at least in part, for the aberrant downwards deflexion of Chinas curve in 2009. It may contribute to the upwards inflexion of the European nations. These are averages. The trend is informative but for output and impact there is more information to be derived from a disaggregated analysis of normalised impact by main fields. Figure 5 tells us that the UK has particular relative capacity in biological sciences compared to physical sciences and mathematics, so the Research Footprint in Figure 7 is structured to separate the molecular and organismal components of biological research performance. It is evident that the UKs performance relative to the USA is based on its exceptionally high achievements in organismal biology, where the USA suffers, and the UKs similar performance in molecular biology and in clinical sciences. The UK is also ahead of every other country in all six of the discipline groupings displayed here, although Germany is a very close third behind the UK and US in engineering. There are some smaller European countries, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, which have exceptional citation impact and overtake the UK in some areas. However, Figure 7 makes it abundantly clear that the UK is maintaining a high level of achievement across a diversity of areas of research. The distribution of research performance is always skewed, tending to produce many incidences of low performance and relatively few incidences of exceptionally high performance within any data set. This means that the average is not near the median, as it would be in a typical bell-shaped distribution, but is usually well above that midpoint.10 The research that has the greatest impact on other academic researchers, and which is likely to have an exceptional contribution to economic competitiveness, is that at the upper end of the distribution. We can look at this separately, and in particular we can look at that small portion of the national research base which lies in the worlds top 1% of cited papers (adjusted for year and discipline).

FIGURE 6 Average normalised citation impact (citation impact adjusted for year and subject category) for research publications published each year from 1991-2010 from the UK and five comparator countries.

FIGURE 7 Research Footprint comparing the UKs normalised citation impact by main subject area with the impact of five comparator countries. The axis is scaled around world average impact (= 1.0) in each of the six areas, which are normalised independently. Arts & Humanities are not included, as citation impact is a limited indicator of research performance in these disciplines.

Table 2 summarises three indicators of exceptional impact, all of which confirm the exceptional relative strength of the UK research base. In addition to the conventional index of highly cited papers, we also extracted the numbers of papers with over 500 citations and the small number just 717 globally for 2000-2010 that have been cited over 1,000 times. It is notable that papers with over 500 citations are associated historically with Nobel prize-winners.11

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT

Many of the most highly cited papers have international co-authorship, so national totals add up to more than the global total. However, not all countries have authors on a high proportion of these papers. The UK lies second only to the USA, and the more discriminating the indicator, the more the
TABLE 2

UK share rises: UK researchers are co-authors on almost one-fifth of the worlds papers cited over 1,000 times. This must surely be good news for the UKs prospects of adding to its exceptional tally of Nobel prizes.

The numbers of frequently cited papers published between 2000 and 2010 by the UK and five comparator countries. Papers are analysed by three performance indicators: whether they are in the top 1% by citations for year and category; whether they have been cited more than 500 times; and whether they have been cited more than 1,000 times. Count of papers In global top 1% UK China France Germany Japan USA World 13,510 5,759 6,984 11,162 5,606 55,062 97,601 Cited > 500 times 603 69 307 452 250 2,525 3,608 Cited > 1000 times 142 14 70 90 59 503 717 In global top 1% 13.84 5.90 7.16 11.44 5.74 56.42 Share of world (%) Cited > 500 times 16.71 1.91 8.51 12.53 6.93 69.98 Cited > 1000 times 19.80 1.95 9.76 12.55 8.23 70.15

SUMMARY
The data analyzed in this Report demonstrate two things. First, the linkage between OECD and Thomson Reuters data draws a multifaceted picture across the research process and creates a new basis of information about not just the practice but also the process of science. Second, that analysis reveals the powerful performance of the UK research base. The UK has a much greater share of publications and a very much greater share of highly cited publications than would be expected from either its financial input or its researcher capacity (Figure 8). The USA, with much greater capacity, shows a similar pattern of improvement in share from inputs to outcomes. However, while the UK gets an almost five-fold gain in share moving across the indicators there is not even a doubling for the USA (Table 3). European neighbors also see greater share of outcome than
FIGURE 8 Key performance indicators of the relative international performance of the UK research base and that of five comparator countries. These indicators are all based on share of world activity (Table 3) and the axes are scaled to 25%. China indicates that it has 34% of world researchers but these data may not yet adopt the OECD definition; a provisional value has also been entered for Chinas PhD awards. The rising gold bars show that the UK has the lowest share of GERD and, with the exception of the USA, the greatest share of highly cited papers. The data summarised in Figure 8 are also set out in detail in Table 3.

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT

TABLE 3 Key performance indicators for the UK research base and for that of five comparator countries. In each case the countrys activity is shown as a share (%) of the global total taken from OECD or Thomson Reuters databases. The data are illustrated in Figure 8. OECD data GERD PhD awards 7.99 5.44 12.31 7.84 30.64 Research staff 6.02 33.89 5.28 6.93 16.30 33.64 Thomson Reuters data Papers Cites Highly cited papers 13.84 5.90 7.16 11.44 5.74 56.42 Papers cited > 500 16.71 1.91 8.51 12.53 6.93 69.98 Papers cited > 1000 19.80 1.95 9.76 12.55 8.23 70.15

UK China France Germany Japan USA

4.15 12.69 4.70 8.06 15.72 41.48

7.96 10.14 5.52 7.67 7.05 29.66

11.31 7.14 6.77 10.24 7.01 43.28

input but get less gearing from their research base than the UK does, while Japan and China actually see a fall in share for outputs compared to inputs. The great mystery about the UK research base is that the level of investment in R&D from the private sector is relatively low. There appear to be rich pickings in novel IP and, given that UK science appears on the basis of the data in Table 3 to show the best possible return on investment, it is strange that business is reluctant to come to the table.12 Why might the level of R&D investment be, or appear to be, so low? Although innovative materials, in which the UK has relatively low investment, are a key focus of current innovation interest, this alone seems unlikely to account for the deficit. The UK research base is more strongly focused on biomedicine than that of France or Germany, and much more than China. Pharmaceuticals are an area of relatively strong R&D investment, linked to drug pipelines, and this is a well-established UK sector with strong collaborative links to universities. The recent departure of Pfizer signals a significant contraction, which should concern the UK government, but does it explain the longer trend?13 Or is there another problem? Perhaps industry lacks the capacity to exploit the opportunity. On the other hand, maybe it simply does not need to invest when the research base is so productive. What industry needs is talent. The UK has been behind the beat in the proportion of its work force that would be classified by the OECD as researchers (Figure 2). That has changed over the last decade and its output of highly skilled postgraduates is also rising. To translate the innovation coming out of research into new products and processes, industry needs to capture these skilled people. It may need appropriate incentives to take on the labor relatively expensive compared to China and India that they represent. A future focus on talent, trained in an environment of research excellence, would likely be a key advantage for UK policy if the governments aim is to convince industry of the competitive value offered by the countrys research profile. Perhaps this is where the UK should be looking to realize its potential for wealth re-creation.

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT

REFERENCES

1. The previously published Thomson Reuters Global Research Reports are available at: http:// researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/grr/. The nations or regions treated in these reports have included China, India, Brazil, the United States and the Middle East. 2. The OECD provides comments on a number of the data points in RDS and MSTI, explaining their derivation or discussing their accuracy. These comments have not been reproduced here but are available to the interested reader when referring to the original data. Sources can be found at: http://stats.oecd.org/ wbos/Index.aspx 3. OECD (2002). Frascati Manual: proposed standard practice for surveys on research experimental development. OECD, Paris. ISBN 92 64 19903 9 4. UNESCO-OECD-Eurostat (UOE) data collection on education statistics, compiled on the basis of national administrative sources, reported by Ministries of Education or National Statistical Offices. Level of Education 60: advanced research programmes. Data extracted on 01 Sept 2011 from OECD Stat: http:// stats.oecd.org/index.aspx 5. Testa J (2011). Thomson Reuters Journal Selection Process. http://thomsonreuters.com/ products_services/science/free/essays/journal_selection_process/ 6. See Note (1) above. 7. Evidence Thomson Reuters (2009). The International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base. Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, London. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/ http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/science/science-funding/science-budget/uk-research-base 8. Adams J and Testa J (2011). Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index. Proceedings of ISSI 2011 (13th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics), Durban. Volume 1, pp 129-132. Table 1 summarises output types submitted for research assessment by UK academics in successive research assessment cycles 1996, 2001 and 2008 demonstrating the diversity of output modes identified as significant for representing high quality research outcomes. 9. Adams J and Bekhradnia B (2004). What future for dual support? A report to the Higher Education Policy Institute, Oxford. http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/6%20Dual%20Support.pdf 10. Adams J, Gurney K A and Marshall S (2007). Profiling citation impact: a new methodology. Scientometrics, 72, 325-344. 11. Thomson Reuters Nobel Prize predications, based on analysis of publication and citation data can be reviewed at http://science.thomsonreuters.com/nobel/ 12. Universities UK (2010). The future of research: a report by Evidence Thomson Reuters. Universities UK, London. ISBN 1 84036 232 9 13. Adams J and Gurney K A (2011). Pfizer closure shows UKs weakening commitment to research. http:// exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/exquisite_life/2011/02/pharmaceuticalspfizer.html#more

GLOBAL RESEARCH REPORT

Science Head Offices Americas Philadelphia

+1 800 336 4474 +1 215 386 0100

Europe, Middle East and Africa London +44 20 7433 4000 Asia Pacific Singapore Tokyo

+65 6775 5088 +81 3 5218 6500

For a complete office list visit: science.thomsonreuters.com/contact

SSR 1109 ??? Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters