The goal of this paper is to examine the impact of linguistic coverage of databases used by bibliometricians on the capacity to effectively benchmark the work of researchers in social sciences and humanities. We examine the strong link between bibliometrics and the Thomson Scientific's database and review the differences in the production and diffusion of knowledge in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) and the natural sciences and engineering (NSE). This leads to a re-examination of the debate on the coverage of these databases, more specifically in the SSH. The methods section explains how we have compared the coverage of Thomson Scientific databases in the NSE and SSH to the Ulrich extensive database of journals. Our results show that there is a 20 to 25% overrepresentation of English-language journals in Thomson Scientific's databases compared to the list of journals presented in Ulrich. This paper concludes that because of this bias, Thomson Scientific databases cannot be used in isolation to benchmark the output of countries in the SSH.

sciences, but that its role in the humanities is stagnant and has even tended to diminish slightly in the 1990s. Journal literature accounts for less than 50% of the citations in several disciplines of the social sciences and humanities; hence, special care should be used when using bibliometric indicators that rely only on journal literature. IntroductionBibliometrics and other quantitative methods are being used increasingly in research evaluation because of the growing concern about accountability of public spending in science (King, 1987;Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2001). While the validity and appropriateness of bibliometric methods are largely accepted in the natural sciences, the situation is more complex in the case of the social sciences and humanities.Bibliometricians who evaluate research output in the natural sciences can rely on a well-defined set of core journals that contains the most-cited research and is covered comprehensively by both disciplinary and interdisciplinary databases. The same cannot be said about the social sciences and humanities.Hicks (1999, 2004)

Using the entire population of professors at universities in the province of Quebec (Canada), this article analyzes the relationship between sex and research funding, publication rates, and scientific impact. Since age is an important factor in research and the population pyramids of men and women are different, the role of age is also analyzed. The article shows that, after they have passed the age of about 38, women receive, on average, less funding for research than men, are generally less productive in terms of publications, and are at a slight disadvantage in terms of the scientific impact (measured by citations) of their publications. Various explanations for these differences are suggested, such as the more restricted collaboration networks of women, motherhood and the accompanying division of labour, women's rank within the hierarchy of the scientific community and access to resources as well as their choice of research topics and level of specialization.

No abstract