Region/World data from SJR.com

[Geoffrey Peters]

This time with the data, the list serv did not like my picture:

   Region Documents Citable Documents Citations  Western Europe
6,069,497                          5,766,285                      77,801,769
 Eastern Europe                    1,174,245                          1,159,711
                       6,554,097  Northern Africa
    55,710
                               54,231
238,467  Central
Africa                          48,358                                46,988
                           287,681  Southern Africa
    121,723
                            116,132                        1,071,869  Northern
America                    5,359,260
5,090,375
94,575,822  Latin America                        593,304
578,366                        4,477,285  Middle East
399,038                             386,721                        3,563,347
 Asiatic Region                    4,197,176                          4,122,584
                     28,844,099  Pacific Region                        541,573
                            512,390                        6,927,021
World
21,016,325                       19,144,253                   200,669,857



 Sum of Regions                  18,559,884                       17,833,783
                  224,341,457  Sum of Regions - World
  2,456,441
                         1,310,470 -                   23,671,600

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Geoffrey Peters
<geoffreypeters6 at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> The data freely available at: http://www.scimagojr.com/ is very helpful.
> But I have recently noticed a discrepancy (either in my understanding in how
> the data is put together, or in the data itself). I’m interested if anybody
> has an explanation.
>
> It is possible to look at publication output at a regional level. In this
> report you get metrics such as #documents, #citable documents, #citations
> covering the period 1996- 2009. I understood this to represent, e.g. how
> many documents were published which included at least one author from a
> given region. I assume that the regional figures would be de-duped so as not
> to count collaborating researchers from different countries within the same
> region. You also have the corresponding figures at the world level, see
> below.
>
>
>
> Now while I could understand if the sum of the regional values were greater
> than the world totals (a paper from collaborating researchers from different
> regions would get counted in multiple regions), it appears that the sums of
> the regional values for #documents and  #citable documents are actually
> lower than the world values. Is there a simple explanation for this? Is it
> simply that 1.3 million citable documents have no country data associated
> with them?
>
> Cordially
>
> Geoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20110408/fbe92467/attachment.html>