|Nation||Total papers||Cited papers||Per cent cited||Relative index||Impact rank|
There are many measures that one can – and should – use to gauge national research performance. The table above ranks nations that produced 20,000 or more papers (articles and reviews) from 2005 to 2009 by their percentage of cited papers by the end of last year. Naturally, papers published in 2009 were less cited than those published in the earlier part of the five-year period. The longer that one permits citations to accrue, the higher the percentage cited will be. Thus, one should not conclude from the figures above that about 40 per cent of Taiwan’s papers are never cited – only that 60 per cent of the basket of papers from this five-year period were cited. It is simply a statistic to be used for comparisons.
Denmark, ranked first by this measure, saw 74.45 per cent of its 2005-09 papers receive at least one citation by the end of the period. This was 17 per cent above the world average, as indicated in the relative index column (where 1.00 represents the world average). Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Scotland rank second to fifth. By no means do the largest producers, such as the US (eighth) or China (33rd), dominate.
The final column shows the rank of each nation by its 2005-09 citation impact, which allows for a comparison of the relationship between the measure of per cent cited and citations per paper. The two measures, as can be seen, are related. Citedness represents another performance metric indicative of excellence.
The UK as a whole exhibited a 70.89 per cent citation score for the period. In terms of regions, the European Union, Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Middle East earned percentage-cited scores of 66.87, 60.05, 56.45 and 56.04, respectively, which correspond to relative index scores of 1.05, 0.94, 0.89 and 0.88.
For more information, see http://science.thomsonreuters.com/products/nsi