State of the Nation 2010


6. Digest of Indicators

6.2 Knowledge Development and Transfer Indicators

6.2.1 Advancing the Frontiers of Knowledge through Science and Technology

The development of knowledge is the root of a country's innovation ecosystem. The quality and quantity of knowledge that is generated is difficult to quantify, more so as the Internet has allowed for free and open collaboration at unprecedented levels. This report uses bibliometric indicators and university rankings to examine Canada's performance in knowledge development through research.

6.2.1.1 Measuring Outputs of Research through Bibliometric Indicators

Bibliometric indicators are the most widely used indicators in international comparative studies on the outputs of research. They fall into five main categories: the number of publications, specialization in a particular scientific discipline, the number of citations, relative impact and the level of international cooperation, as revealed by the volume of co-publications.94

Number of publications — International data published by the Observatoire des sciences et des techniques in Paris show that in 2008 Canada, with a share of only 0.5 percent of global population, accounted for 3.3 percent of scientific publications in the world. In absolute terms, this places us in 8th position after the United States, China, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy. It is worth noting that between 2003 and 2008 China increased its share of publications by 93 percent. China is now the second largest producer of publications in the world between the United States and Japan.95

In 2006, 82.4 percent of Canadian scientific publications came from the higher education sector (up from 77.6 percent in 1996). Researchers working in hospitals, federal government laboratories, private sector firms and provincial government laboratories added to Canada's total output as well. Ontario (45.8 percent) and Quebec (23.6 percent) contributed approximately 70 percent of Canadian publications.96

Scientific specialization — Publications data can also be used to get a rough idea of the scientific specialization of a country.97 Overall, European countries are not heavily specialized, with relatively equal shares of publications in specific fields that do not differ much from their total publications shares. Asia and North America, by contrast, display much greater concentration of scientific research. As a rule, Asian countries tend to specialize in physics, chemistry and engineering science but under-specialize in the life sciences. Conversely, in North America, there tends to be a specialization in biology and medical research but an under-specialization in physics and chemistry. Canadian researchers account for 4 percent of world publications in basic biology, but only for 2 percent and for 2.1 percent respectively in physics and chemistry. The same degree of specialization also holds for the United States. Canada also has a number of specializations that do not reflect North American trends and so may be regarded as comparative advantages, especially over the U.S. In particular, Canadian researchers account for 4.3 percent of world publications in applied biology and ecology, and 4.2 percent in astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology, as well as 3.9 percent in engineering science.98

Citations — Metrics based on the number of publications, however, only give part of the story. It is also useful to look at the number of times scientific papers are cited as sources.99 A calculation done in 2007 by the Observatoire des sciences et des technologies de l'Université du Québec à Montréal, using the Thomson Reuters database, shows that, in terms of volume of citations received by scientific papers over a two-year period following publication, Canada ranks 4th in the world behind the United States, U.K. and Germany.100 Since, as we have seen, Canada ranks 8th in terms of number of publications, this means that on average Canadian scientific papers are cited more than the world average.

Relative impact — According to the relative impact index published by the Observatoire des sciences et des techniques,101 in 2008, Canada's relative impact index over a two-year period was 1.09, which makes us — among the twenty countries that account individually for at least 1 percent of world publications — one of only nine countries with a relative impact index greater than one, behind the United States (1.47), Switzerland (1.44), the Netherlands (1.33), Denmark (1.32), the U.K. (1.25), Germany (1.20), Sweden (1.17) and Belgium (1.10).102 Interestingly Canada, even though we under-specialize in chemistry in terms of volume of publications, has a specialized relative impact index for this discipline that is higher than for any other discipline (1.29). This may suggest that Canadian publications in this field are of a high quality, and that Canada's under-specialization in it should not necessarily be interpreted as an area of scientific weakness.

International co-publication — Over the past ten years, the science communities in a number of industrializing countries have begun to make an impact. For instance, China, South Korea, India and Turkey are now making significant contributions to the global total of published scientific literature. The emergence of these countries is an opportunity for Canadian researchers to network globally, especially through scientific co-publications. Between 2001 and 2006, the percentage of world scientific publications that are international co-publications (i.e., involving researchers from at least two different countries) has risen from 16.3 percent to 19.1 percent, which represents a 17 percent increase in the total number of co-publications. Over the same period, Canada has kept pace with the general increase of co-publications throughout the world with an 18 percent increase in its total number of co-publications. In 2006, 42.1 percent of Canada's total publications were co-publications compared with 35.8 percent in 2001. This puts us in the top tier of international co-publishers, with Switzerland (57.7 percent), South Africa (46.6 percent), Mexico (43.8 percent) and Israel (41.2 percent).103

6.2.1.2 Measuring the Performance of Canada's Universities

Along with bibliometric indicators, rankings of world universities have grown in popularity as measures of a country's performance in research. There are three commonly cited sources for measuring the quality of universities: the Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University (GSE-SJTU) Academic Ranking of World Universities (the "Shanghai ranking");104 the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings, and the Times Higher Education ranking (THE). Many strong criticisms have been raised by experts about the methodology and validity of these rankings.105 Despite their possible methodological flaws, university rankings now play a major role in influencing the international reputation of our higher education sector. Reputation helps an institution recruit and retain the best researchers, enhances opportunities for collaboration and networking and can improve its ability to attract research funding and funding for scholarships.

Shanghai Jiao Tong University (GSE-SJTU) — In 2010, according to GSE-SJTU, Canada had four universities in the top 100: University of Toronto (27th place), University of British Columbia (36th place), McGill University (61st place) and McMaster University (88th place).106 Overall, Canada had 23  universities ranked in the Shanghai ranking top 500. These results are similar to the ones obtained in 2008. While it may still be disappointing that no Canadian university figures in the ranking's top 10 or top 20, Canada nevertheless ranks 5th (out of 39 countries) on the list of countries with the greatest number of universities in the top 100, and 6th on the list of countries with the greatest number of universities in the top 500. On both lists, only much larger countries rank ahead of us. Canadian universities account for 4.0 percent of universities ranked in the top 100 and for 4.6 percent of the ones ranked in the top 500. We achieve these results with a share of only 0.5 percent of global population. This means that, with a ratio of 8.0 for the percentage of universities in the top 100 relative to the share of global population, we clearly outperform countries such as Germany, Japan and France. Our results are even better for the top 500. With a ratio of 9.2 for the percentage of universities in the top 500 relative to the share of global population, Canada outperforms the United States and United Kingdom.

A different weighting of the Shanghai ranking's indicators placing greater emphasis on indicators of current rather than past performance would place Canadian universities higher. The Shanghai ranking's first two indicators (total number of alumni and staff having won Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals) have a combined weight of 30 percent. These indicators take into account Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals won in past decades. In contrast, the Shanghai ranking's indicator that focuses the most on the current research performance of universities has a weight of 20 percent. It takes into account the total number of papers indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index in the previous year. Canadian universities score substantially higher for this indicator than in total scores. For example, the University of Toronto performs remarkably well, ranking third on the complete list, behind only Harvard University and the University of Tokyo. Ranked 18th, the University of British Columbia is on par with Cambridge University.

R&D Sub-Priority: Regenerative Medicine

Dr. Mick Bhatia, director of the Stem Cell and Cancer Research Institute (SCC-RI) at McMaster University, and Canada Research Chair in Human Stem Cell Biology, and his team, have found a way to create blood from a patch of a person's own skin.

Dr. Mick Bhatia, director of the Stem Cell and Cancer Research Institute (SCC-RI) at McMaster University, and Canada Research Chair in Human Stem Cell Biology, and his team, have found a way to create blood from a patch of a person's own skin.

Turning Skin into Blood — A Canadian Researcher Develops New Opportunities for Cancer Treatment

Dr. Mick Bhatia, and his team, published research findings in the prestigious scientific journal Nature (November 7, 2010), which demonstrated — for the first time — that human skin cells could be directly converted into blood cells.

The impact of this research could mean that patients requiring blood for surgery, cancer treatments or treatments for blood conditions, could create blood from their own skin. This could revolutionize cancer treatment approaches, for bone marrow transplants for example, by eliminating the need to find a donor match, and in turn reducing time and treatment costs.

Dr. Bhatia is a recognized leader in the field of human hematopoietic stem cell biology and pluripotent stem cells. He is also the current director of the Stem Cell and Cancer Research Institute (SCC-RI) at McMaster University, and Canada Research Chair in Human Stem Cell Biology. His discovery builds on pioneering research by other Canadians, Dr. Jim Till and Dr. Ernest McCulloch, who first published evidence of the existence of stem cells in 1963.

Dr. Bhatia's research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Stem Cell Network and Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation.

Rankings by Field and Subject — Since 2007 and 2009 respectively, the GSE-SJTU has also been producing rankings of universities according to five different fields (natural sciences and mathematics; engineering/technology and computer sciences; life and agriculture sciences; clinical medicine and pharmacy; and social sciences) as well as five different subjects (mathematics; physics; chemistry; computer science; and economy/business). The methodology behind these specialized rankings differs from the one used to build the overall ranking. It places less weight on the indicators pertaining to the total number of alumni and staff having won Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (25 percent instead of 30 percent), and more on bibliometric indicators (75 percent instead of 60 percent). Since bibliometric indicators better reflect the current research performance of universities, Canadian universities generally fare better in the specialized than in the overall rankings. Canadian universities appear 23 times in the combined five top 100 rankings related to fields, which makes Canada the 3rd most represented country in these specialized rankings behind the United States (with 284) and United Kingdom (with 44). With a total of 27, Canada also ranks 3rd (tied with China) on the list of countries with most universities in the combined five top 100 rankings related to subjects, trailing once again only the United States (with 265) and United Kingdom (with 37). Only the University of Toronto achieves a top 20 ranking in one of the five lists related to fields and in one of the five lists related to subjects, ranking 19th in engineering/technology and computer sciences and 8th in computer science.

Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings — Until 2009, the QS World University Rankings were published in collaboration with Times Higher Education and referred to as the Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings. In 2010, QS assumed sole publication of the ranking based on the same methodology as in 2008.107 According to the 2010 edition, Canada has four universities in the top 100: McGill University (19th place), University of Toronto (29th place), University of British Columbia (44th place), and University of Alberta (78th place). This is one less than in 2008, but the wide discrepancies in the performances of many Canadian and foreign universities between the 2008, 2009 and 2010 editions of the ranking raise questions about the validity of the findings.

Times Higher Education Ranking — After their split with Quacquarelli Symonds, the Times Higher Education (THE) developed a new methodology for its 2010 ranking. In the top 100 universities for 2010, the THE ranking includes four Canadian universities: University of Toronto (17th place), University of British Columbia (30th place), McGill University (35th place) and McMaster University (93rd place). Overall, Canada has nine universities listed in the 2010 THE ranking, of 200 universities. This places Canada fifth in countries with universities ranked.

Financial Times Global MBA School Rankings — Management skills are a key complement to science and engineering skills in a knowledge-based economy. In the Financial Times annual Global Masters in Business Administration rankings, the number of Canadian business schools in the top 100 has not increased since 2004. Figure 26 shows that the majority of Canadian business schools remain lower in the ranks than their 2004 peak with the exception of the University of Alberta. The École des hautes études commerciales Master of Science Program in Administration ranked 34th in the Financial Times Master in Management Ranking 2010.

Figure 26: Ranking of Canada's Top MBA Schools

School

2004

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: Financial Times, Business School Rankings.

University of Toronto

21

27

40

47

45

University of Western Ontario

29

41

53

47

49

York University

22

49

48

49

54

University of British Columbia

67

77

92

71

82

University of Alberta

97

-

88

77

86

McGill University

39

90

96

-

95

6.2.2 Transferring Knowledge into Innovation

In an economy focused on knowledge, research is no longer performed solely within the walls of large institutions or corporations. Collaboration is a new and important source of competitive advantage. Interactions between diverse actors across a diverse range of knowledge transfer activities have increased the possibility of research outcomes that are more relevant to the users of that knowledge. In such a scenario, knowledge is transferred back and forth between knowledge creators and knowledge users who convert knowledge into products, services or innovation.

Knowledge transfer, and its success and impact, are difficult to measure because the relationship between research, knowledge transfer and economic development is complex. Licensing income and start-ups have been the standard metrics for knowledge transfer. The U.K.'s Unico and the United States' STAR METRICS project are developing a broader set of knowledge transfer metrics focused on quality (along with quantity)108, 109 to represent knowledge transfer activities of a university. The Lattes Platform in Brazil is an example of new infrastructure for tracking and reporting knowledge transfer. This standardized database compiles information on researchers (uniquely identified), their research and their institutions. Knowledge transfer activities discussed in this report focus on those involving universities and the private sector.

While the 2009 Survey of Innovation and Business Strategy examined collaboration on product and process development with other enterprises and institutions, it did not include a specific question on university-industry collaborations. A question that would allow for comparability with other OECD data would be a useful addition to future surveys. According to a recent World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report, a relatively low share of Canadian executives gave positive reviews of the state of university-industry cooperation in Canada.110 In the 2009–10 survey executives ranked Canada ninth out of 139 countries in terms of university-industry collaboration in R&D, which is an improvement from 14th place in the 2008–09 survey.

A 2010 survey of business leaders by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal111 examined the relationship between business and academia in Quebec. Over half (53 percent) of the respondents stated that they had "collaborated" with a university in the last three years. Internships (39 percent) were by far the most widespread type of collaboration. However, the more "scientific" type of collaboration is less common, with few companies participating in collaborative research (9 percent), contract research (6 percent), association with a research chair (3 percent) or incubator projects (3 percent). While the vast majority (83 percent) of those that "collaborated" with a university in the last three years intend to do so again in the future, two thirds of the companies that did not collaborate with academia in the last three years did not foresee any collaboration in the years ahead.

6.2.2.1 Knowledge Transfer through Internships

Internships allow students to apply their studies to real world issues. This is an important tool for universities and community colleges in fulfilling their primary mission — educating students to create, analyze and think for themselves. An internship can also better prepare students for the workplace and for the demands to deliver on time and on budget.

The Government of Canada has strengthened internship programs through commitments in recent budgets, including additional support for the Industrial Research and Development Internship program (Budget 2009) and the Career Focus component of the Youth Employment Strategy (Budget 2010). This further increases receptor capacity, which is the capacity to see potential applications of research to solve problems and achieve performance targets and cost savings.

6.2.2.2 Knowledge Transfer through Contract Research

In 2008, Canadian universities undertook research contracts worth almost $2 billion, representing a significant 55 percent increase from 2007.112 The federal government and provincial and other levels of government maintained their respective share of that amount (a fifth and a quarter respectively) while Canadian businesses and non-profit organizations accounted for a third of the total value of those research contracts.

6.2.2.3 Knowledge Transfer through Research Collaboration and Partnerships

The number of university-industry co-authored scientific articles increased by 80 percent between 1990 and 2005 and the average number of citations of co-authored papers in 2005 was greater than non-collaborative papers.113

In terms of management, business, and finance research in Canada, the Council of Canadian Academies has noted that collaboration was observed primarily between universities; collaborations between universities and private sector or public sector entities comprised only 10 percent of the total number of collaborative papers.114

6.2.2.4 Licensing Technologies and Trademarking Innovations

Licences are an indicator of technologies ready for commercialization. According to Statistics Canada's Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector (2008), 81 percent of responding (101) Canadian universities and affiliated teaching hospitals were engaged in IP management, a number that has remained steady since 2005.

In 2007–08, Canada's 42 academic health-care organizations initiated over 1,500 new clinical trials with a potential value of over $300 million; and created nearly 300 licences and 200 disclosures. In addition, between 2003 and 2006, they generated approximately $30 million in licence and technology transfer income. Since 1995, they have created at least 100 world-first discoveries and 65 new spinoff companies.115

Innovequity Inc., with a $50,000 voucher from the Alberta Innovation Voucher Program, and technical expertise from novaNAIT, developed the Geometric Construction System that will automate up to 70 percent of the construction process.

Innovequity Inc., with a $50,000 voucher from the Alberta Innovation Voucher Program, and technical expertise from novaNAIT, developed the Geometric Construction System that will automate up to 70 percent of the construction process.

Alberta Innovation Voucher Program Speeds Ideas to Market

Alberta's Innovation Voucher Program was launched in 2008. It is one part of Alberta's Action Plan: Bringing Technology to Market. In the first two rounds of awards, almost 400 vouchers worth approximately $11 million were awarded to small companies across Alberta. Available in $10,000 and $50,000 denominations, vouchers are intended for business services such as marketing, planning, or business formation, as well as for technology development activities such as product prototyping, laboratory verification and field testing.

During the early stages of product development, many promising businesses have difficulty securing funding because "proof of concept" may not exist and investors are not yet willing to commit resources. Alberta's Innovation Voucher Program enables connections with supportive agencies and access to business and product development expertise and services.

In 2009, Innovequity Inc. received a $50,000 Alberta Innovation Voucher to develop its automated construction system for factory-built houses. Innovequity used their voucher to access the technical expertise available at novaNAIT, an innovation support centre of the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. The Geometric Construction System will automate up to 70 percent of the construction process, increasing efficiency and enhancing competitiveness for companies that use it. This could result in tremendous cost savings for North America's $20-billion annual factory-built housing industry.

The OECD has found that the number of trademark applications is highly correlated with other innovation indicators. Because trademarks can be applied to a multiplicity of goods and services, they can convey information on product innovations as well as marketing innovations and innovations in the services sector.116 Typically, countries with larger services sectors tend to protect intellectual property more frequently through trademarking than those that are strong in manufacturing or specialized in ICT (which favour patenting).117 In terms of service-related trademarks as a percentage of total trademark filings, Canada ranked 14 out of 41 countries in 2008.118

In 2007 data from the World Intellectual Property Organization, Canada ranked 17 out of 162 countries in the total number of direct resident trademark applications.119 A more useful measure, however, may be the number of cross-border trademarks (Figure 27), since direct resident trademark numbers reflect the tendency of firms to file trademarks first in their home country.120 According to this measure, Canada ranks 19 out of 38 countries for the period 2005–07.121

Figure 27: Cross-Border Trademarks per Million Population (Selected Countries, Average 2005 to 2007)

6.2.2.5 Spinning Off New Companies to Move Technology to Market

For 2008, the estimates of new companies formed from Canadian universities range from 19122 to 39.123 Figure 28 shows the numbers from the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) Canadian Licensing Activity Survey of spinoff companies broken down by year of incorporation from 2005 to 2008. According to Statistics Canada the total number of incorporated companies spun off by reporting institutions to date since 1999 is 1,242.124

Figure 28: Number of University Spinoff Companies by Year of Incorporation, 2005 to 2008

6.2.2.6 Networks and Open Innovation — New Approaches to Collaboration

Innovations are increasingly brought to the market by networks or clusters, partners selected according to their comparative advantages, and that operate in a coordinated manner. The Internet is also giving businesses new opportunities to tap into the knowledge of customers, partners and employees.

The Business-Led Networks of Centres of Excellence and Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research programs administered by Canada's granting councils are examples of how the federal government distributes grants that involve research and encourages collaboration between researchers in universities and businesses. In 2009–10, the Networks of Centres of Excellence stimulated $27.8 million (or 17 percent of the program) in cash and in-kind investments from private sector companies125 that were used to encourage research, training, knowledge translation and commercialization.

Many companies are trying new ways to reduce R&D costs by adopting new approaches such as open innovation, open source, outsourcing, and intellectual property (IP) sharing into their business models. They are posting their challenges and their "unused" knowledge on various Internet-based open innovation service companies such as InnoCentive, Innoget, PRESANS and IdeaConnection. For example, pharmaceutical companies are looking for collaboration with other pharmaceutical companies, academia and other outside sources for sharing talent, resources, tools and technologies, such as high-throughput screening assays, for identifying drug targets for a particular disease. They are also posting the knowledge gained through their research that did not result in the successful development of a drug, so that others may use it.

R&D Sub-Priority: Health in an Aging Population

Research Network: Healthcare Support through Information Technology Enhancements (hSITE)

Ten years ago, 12 percent of Canadians were over 65 years old. By 2026, that cohort will have ballooned to 20 percent of the population. With this demographic shift comes an increased strain on the country's health-care system, as more and more Canadians are forced to deal with the injuries and chronic diseases that are a hallmark of aging.

To better serve Canada's older population — and to meet other challenges, such as increased costs and decreased personnel — the Healthcare Support through Information Technology Enhancements (hSITE) network is creating cost-effective new IT designed to boost workflow efficiency and reduce costs.

Established in 2009, hSITE brings together the front line clinicians who need new IT technologies with the electrical and computer engineering researchers who can create it. The project is one of nine strategic research networks funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, with contributions from Canadian partner companies. McGill is the hub of the hSITE network, which spans seven universities, eight health-care organizations and industrial partners such as RIM, IBM and Nortel.

Whether it's delivering a child's X-ray to an emergency room doctor's hand-held e-reader, or a senior citizen's blood test results to a home-care nurse's laptop, hSITE is dedicated to getting the right information to the right person at the right time, while providing affordable, quality health care for all Canadians.

Industry partners can form consortia to drive R&D that is more focused on a specific challenge. Governance mechanisms in consortia can ensure that research is demand-driven.

6.2.2.7 Clusters — An Environment for Innovation to Flourish

A cluster is a recognized critical mass of geographically concentrated and interconnected companies, educational institutions and government research organizations. Clusters usually involve enterprises from the same sector, having similar characteristics or products or holding complementary positions in a value chain, including professional services firms, as well as government and educational institutions. The forms and boundaries of clusters are dynamic, build upon existing private sector strengths, and evolve over a period of 15 to 20 years.

Pratt & Whitney — A Leader in Developing Strategic Relationships

Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) is one of the largest aircraft engine manufacturers in the world. Founded in 1928 and located in Longueuil, Quebec, Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) is the company lead for worldwide small engine development and manufacturing. P&WC is the number one research and development investor in Canadian aerospace and top five in all industries, with over $400 million invested annually.

Research Relationships — P&WC has worked with over 20 Canadian universities on more than 250 university and National Research Council research projects. The company invested approximately $15 million in universities in 2008. Aside from directly funding research projects, resources have also gone towards the establishment of three Industrial Research Chairs,126 the establishment of eight research fellows,127 a number of Centres of Excellence, and the creation of four undergraduate university aerospace institutes.128 The institutes are designed to train the next generation of aerospace engineers by promoting awareness of industry demands and training opportunities. In recent years, P&WC has moved away from one-on-one collaboration and towards more participation in consortiums composed of industry, university and government.

Recruiting Talent — In an average year, approximately 400 students work in P&WC facilities through co-operative education programs, internships and research contracts. Forty students are hired as employees after their term.

Encouraging Clustering — Before 2003 there was no Canadian expertise in aircraft-quality resin transfer moulding of composites. Pratt and Whitney Canada, Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, Delastek, Concordia University and the École Polytechnique de Montréal collaborated to develop a local supply chain. With the assistance of the National Research Council's Aerospace Manufacturing Technology Centre on manufacturing and moulding, the companies worked together to produce the bonded composite wing box, paving the way for future projects that leveraged the expertise available in different parts of the aerospace cluster.

Entrepreneur-driven companies and individuals within the cluster compete, but also cooperate with each other. Taking advantage of the "spillover effects" that enhance the prospects of individual cluster firms as well as the overall productivity and success of the group, the companies and institutions within the cluster are typically able to enhance productivity and get greater access to outside financing, including venture capital. Always client focused, clusters typically undertake research and development activities and encourage risk-taking as well as interdisciplinary work. They are also characterized by a high degree of mobility between cluster participants. Clusters have a regional and national economic impact.

In clusters, smaller companies that have established links with larger ones typically have shorter times to market because they benefit from both better market knowledge and access of larger companies. Larger companies benefit from the innovative ideas and flexibility of smaller companies. Companies of different sizes also draw on specialized expertise that exists in universities, colleges and research institutions but in different ways and on different scales.


94Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques, Bibliometrics as a tool for the analysis of the scientific production of a country, 2009, p. 2. Return to text

95Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques, Indicateurs de sciences et de technologies, 2010, p. 403. Return to text

96Observatoire des sciences et des technologiques, L'observation S&T. Note no. 21, Septembre 2008, p. 2. Return to text

97 – This is done by comparing the share of publications in a field produced by a given country to its world share of publications for all disciplines. Return to text

98Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques, Indicateurs de sciences et de technologies, 2010, p. 406. Return to text

99 – The number of times a country's scientific papers are cited is essentially an indicator of the scientific visibility of the country, but it can also be interpreted as a rough indicator of the quality of scientific papers it produces and their impact on scientific advancement. Indeed Y. Gingras in Le classement de Shanghai n'est pas scientifique, La recherche, no. 430, May 2009, p. 48 has shown that there is a correlation between citations received and the likeliness of researchers obtaining international prizes and awards. Return to text

100 – Y. Gingras, Le classement de Shanghai n'est pas scientifique, La recherche, no. 430, May 2009, p. 48. Return to text

101 – The relative impact index is defined as the ratio between world share of citations for a given country and its world share of publications. Therefore, according to this indicator, when a country's relative impact index is greater than 1, its visibility is better than the world average. Return to text

102Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques, Indicateurs de sciences et de technologies, 2008, pp. 391, 396. Return to text

103 – Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques, Indicateurs de sciences et de technologies, 2008, p. 402. Return to text

104 – The GSE-SJTU Academic Ranking of World Universities evaluates universities on four criteria: quality of education, quality of faculty, research output and size of institution. These are all based on six homogenous indicators, such as awards per faculty member and citations. Return to text

105 – Y. Gingras, Le classement de Shanghai n'est pas scientifique, La recherche, no. 430, May 2009. J.C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and P. Vincke, Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? an MCDM view, Laboratoire d'Informatique, Université François-Rabelais, 2009. Contrary to bibliometric indicators, which are homogenous and easy-to-interpret indicators, university rankings are heterogeneous indicators, aggregating measures that may in fact be fundamentally different in nature and very difficult to add up in a meaningful way. Return to text

106 – Graduate School of Education (formerly the Institute of Higher Education), Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Academic Ranking of World Universities-2009. Return to text

107 – This ranking methodology includes quantitative measures, like the Shanghai Ranking, but also qualitative ones, such as the opinion of surveyed academics. Return to text

108 – Unico, Metrics for the Evaluation of Knowledge Transfer Activities at Universities. Return to text

109STAR METRICS project. Return to text

110 – World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report 2008–2009, 2008. Return to text

111 – Survey conducted in 2010 by Léger Marketing on behalf of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, The Quebec university system: business weighs in. Return to text

112 – Statistics Canada, Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector 2008, 2010. Return to text

113OECD (2007), Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard. Return to text

114 – Canadian Council of Academies, Better Research for Better Business: Report of the Expert Panel on Management, Business, and Finance Research, May 2009. Return to text

115 – Data from ACAHO. Return to text

116, 117OECD (2010), "Protection of innovation (PDF)," OECD Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective. Return to text, Return to text

118OECD (2010), "Trademarks," OECD Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective. Return to text

119 – World Bank (using data from the World Intellectual Property Organization), Trademark Applications, Direct Resident, 2010. Return to text

120 – Cross-border trademark counts correspond to the number of applications filed at USPTO except for Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States. For those countries counts were based on OHIM, German PTO and JPO distributions. Return to text

121OECD (2010), "Protection of innovation," OECD Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective. Return to text

122 – Association of University Technology Managers, Canadian Licensing Activity Survey: FY2008. Return to text

123, 124 – Statistics Canada, Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector 2008, 2010. Return to text, Return to text

125 – Networks of Centres of Excellence of Canada, Annual Report 2009/2010. Return to text

126P&WC Industrial Research Chair in Virtual High-Performance Machining at University of British Columbia; J. Armand Bombardier, NSERC/P&WC Industrial Research Chair in Integrated Design toward Efficient Aircraft (IDEA) at École Polytechnique (contribute $500,000 of $2 million in funding) and the NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Aviation Acoustics at Sherbrooke. Return to text

127Dr. Wagdi G. Habashi, McGill University (Computational Fluid Dynamics); Dr. Steen A. Sjolander, Carleton University (Experimental Aerodynamics); Dr. Yusuf Altintas, University of British Columbia (Manufacturing); Dr. Kamran Behdinan, Ryerson University (Design Optimization); Dr. Clement Fortin, École Polytechnique de Montréal (Product Life Management); Dr. Suong V. Hoa, Concordia University (Composites); Dr. Robert J. Martinuzzi, University of Calgary (Compressor Aerodynamics); Dr. Prakash C. Patnaik, National Research Council (Structures and Materials). Return to text

128 – The Concordia Institute of Aerospace Design and Innovation, l'Institut de conception et d'innovation en aérospatiale de l'ÉTS, Ryerson Institute for Aerospace Design and Innovation, l'Institut d'innovation et de conception en aérospatiale de Polytechnique. Return to text