Excellence in Research for Australia 2012
ERA 2012 Results from the ARC and Analysis :: Publication analysis :: Excellence Index :: Thomson Incites Data (2 digit FOR codes) - 5 Years (cumulative) :: Thomson Incites Data (4 digit FOR codes) - 5 Years (cumulative) :: Thomson Incites Data (2 digit FOR codes) - Individual Years :: Thomson Incites Data (4 digit FOR codes) - Individual Years
- Deakin ERA2012 Results from the ARC (14KB)
- Excellence Index (14KB)
- 11 Medical and Health Sciences (19KB)
- 15 Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services (19KB)
- 17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences (19KB)
![[restricted access]](/research/images/lock.png "Username and password required to access this form")
The following should be noted regarding the data: 1. Whilst the data is from Thompson and not Scopus there should however be a high correlation between the 2 data sources. 2. the data is filtered primarily to allow comparison with Universities that have above 50 outputs however the spreadsheet also allows analysis where Deakin's output in an area is below 50 outputs. 3. The data is for the most recent 5 years (not the 6 year ERA period). 4. The data is sorted on Impact to Subject area (essentially the citation data has been normalised to allow comparison between subject areas with different citation rates). 5. The data uses the institution from the publication whereas ERA uses staff location at the census data (ie staff who have left or come to Deakin are not taken into account as they would be in ERA). 6. Publications that overlap multiple FOR codes are counted at full value in all areas (ie a publication that overlaps chemistry and engineering is counted at full value in both areas). 7. The data is analysed using the 4 digit coding system from ERA2010 (not ERA2012).
The following should be noted regarding the data: 1. Whilst the data is from Thompson and not Scopus there should however be a high correlation between the 2 data sources. 2. the data is filtered primarily to allow comparison with Universities that have above 50 outputs however the spreadsheet also allows analysis where Deakin's output in an area is below 50 outputs. 3. The data is for the most recent 5 years (not the 6 year ERA period). 4. The data is sorted on Impact to Subject area (essentially the citation data has been normalised to allow comparison between subject areas with different citation rates). 5. The data uses the institution from the publication whereas ERA uses staff location at the census data (ie staff who have left or come to Deakin are not taken into account as they would be in ERA). 6. Publications that overlap multiple FOR codes are counted at full value in all areas (ie a publication that overlaps chemistry and engineering is counted at full value in both areas). 7. The data is analysed using the 4 digit coding system from ERA2010 (not ERA2012).
The following should be noted regarding the data: 1. Whilst the data is from Thompson and not Scopus there should however be a high correlation between the 2 data sources. 2.The data is filtered by year with the default year set to 2010 to show Universities with at least of 10 research outputs unless Deakin had less than 10 outputs. In these cases the data is filtered by the number that allows Deakin to show up in the analysis. 3. The data is sorted on Impact to Subject area (essentially the citation data has been normalised to allow comparison between subject areas with different citation rates). 4. The data uses the institution from the publication whereas ERA uses staff location at the census data (ie staff who have left or come to Deakin are not taken into account as they would be in ERA). With the data filtered by the year 2010 any differences due to changes in employment location at time of publication and location at ERA census date will be minimised. 5. Publications that overlap multiple FOR codes are counted at full value in all areas (ie a publication that overlaps chemistry and engineering is counted at full value in both areas). 6. The data is analysed using the 4 digit coding system from ERA2010 (not ERA2012). 7. Citation data between years is not comparable. 8. Changing the year filter should allow information to be gained on whether Deakin has been improving its relative research performance in the particular FoR code. Care should be taken when making interpretations of the data when the number of publications is small.
The following should be noted regarding the data: 1. Whilst the data is from Thompson and not Scopus there should however be a high correlation between the 2 data sources. 2.The data is filtered by year with the default year set to 2010 to show Universities with at least of 10 research outputs unless Deakin had less than 10 outputs. In these cases the data is filtered by the number that allows Deakin to show up in the analysis. 3. The data is sorted on Impact to Subject area (essentially the citation data has been normalised to allow comparison between subject areas with different citation rates). 4. The data uses the institution from the publication whereas ERA uses staff location at the census data (ie staff who have left or come to Deakin are not taken into account as they would be in ERA). With the data filtered by the year 2010 any differences due to changes in employment location at time of publication and location at ERA census date will be minimised. 5. Publications that overlap multiple FOR codes are counted at full value in all areas (ie a publication that overlaps chemistry and engineering is counted at full value in both areas). 6. The data is analysed using the 4 digit coding system from ERA2010 (not ERA2012). 7. Citation data between years is not comparable. 8. Changing the year filter should allow information to be gained on whether Deakin has been improving its relative research performance in the particular FoR code. Care should be taken when making interpretations of the data when the number of publications is small.
