For more than 40 years, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now part of Thomson Reuters) produced the only available bibliographic databases from which bibliometricians could compile largescale bibliometric indicators. ISI's citation indexes, now regrouped under the Web of Science (WoS), were the major sources of bibliometric data until 2004, when Scopus was launched by the publisher Reed Elsevier. For those who perform bibliometric analyses and comparisons of countries or institutions, the existence of these two major databases raises the important question of the comparability and stability of statistics obtained from different data sources. This paper uses macrolevel bibliometric indicators to compare results obtained from the WoS and Scopus. It shows that the correlations between the measures obtained with both databases for the number of papers and the number of citations received by countries, as well as for their ranks, are extremely high (R 2 ≈ .99). There is also a very high correlation when countries' papers are broken down by field. The paper thus provides evidence that indicators of scientific production and citations at the country level are stable and largely independent of the database. Background and research question

No abstract

As bibliometric indicators are objective, reliable, and cost-effective measures of peer-reviewed research outputs, they are expected to play an increasingly important role in research assessment/management. Recently, a bibliometric approach was developed and integrated within the evaluation framework of research funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC). This approach helped address the following questions that were difficult to answer objectively using alternative methods such as program documentation review and key informant interviews: (a) Has the NCIC peer-review process selected outstanding Canadian scientists in cancer research? (b) Have the NCIC grants contributed to increasing the scientific performance of supported researchers? (c) How do the NCIC-supported researchers compare to their neighbors supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute? Using the NCIC evaluation as a case study, this article demonstrates the usefulness of bibliometrics to address key evaluation questions and discusses its integration, along complementary indicators (e.g., peer ratings), in a practice-driven research evaluation continuum.

Family therapy has made a considerable contribution to our understanding of the experiences of children and families and especially how various symptoms can be understood as their response to distressing family dynamics. Though family therapy has found ways of alleviating children's distress we still know relatively little about how children experience the process of family therapy. Such knowledge is important for ethical as well as pragmatic reasons -to be able to offer a more sensitive and effective experience. This paper reports a study employing qualitative methods whereby children were interviewed about their experience of family therapy. Semistructured interviews were conducted after family therapy sessions, and children were invited to recall what they perceived to be helpful and unhelpful. Helpful events or moments were then identified and replayed on the videotape of the sessions to assist children's memory. The results suggest a diversity of experiences according to the children's ages, gender and role in the family. Some common assumptions were challenged by the findings, for example, that some children preferred more directive and focused aspects of the therapy, rather than systemic questions which could inspire feelings of confusion and inadequacy.

No abstract