Skip all navigation and go to page content

Errata

The following errors were discovered after publication of the print and PDF versions of Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 and Science and Engineering Indicators Digest 2012. These errors have been corrected in the online version of the volume and in the interactive Digest.


Updated 31 July 2013

Science and Engineering Indicators 2012
Chapter 2

Appendix table 2-35. Data originally provided for Ecuador were incorrect, and corrected values are not available. Data were deleted for Ecuador and totals were recalculated for South America, World total, and All others.

Updated 12 February 2013

Science and Engineering Indicators 2012
Chapter 3

Page 3-15. The field of study “biological/agricultural/environmental life sciences” was incorrectly reported as “biological/agricultural sciences” and the percentage of degree holders in this field working in S&E occupations was incorrectly calculated. The correct percentage is 30%.

Page 3-16. The percentages of degree holders in computer sciences and mathematics and those in engineering who work in the broad occupation group in which they were trained were incorrectly calculated. The correct value for computer sciences/mathematics is 53%, and for engineering, 50%.

Figure 3-7: The percentages of S&E degree holders working in S&E occupations were incorrectly calculated. The correct percentages for highest degree being in the field (f), doctorate in field (d), master’s in field (m), and bachelor’s in field (b), respectively, are as follows. All S&E degree holders: 38% (f), 74% (d), 51% (m), 31% (b). Biological/agricultural/environmental life sciences: 30% (f), 68% (d), 46% (m), no change (b). Computer/mathematical sciences: 56% (f), no change (d), 65% (m), 52% (b). Physical sciences: 54% (f), 78% (d), 60% (m), 44% (b). Social sciences: no change (f), 70% (d), 23% (m), 8% (b). Engineering: 64% (f), 80% (d), 73% (m), 60% (b).


Updated 14 September 2012

Science and Engineering Indicators 2012
Chapter 2

Figure 2-4. Data in the rows "Mathematics/statistics" and "Computer sciences" are reversed. The correct values for mathematics/statistics are 11.6% for research assistantship, 10.1% for fellowship, 0.8% for traineeship, 51.2% for teaching assistantship, 3.8% for other, and 22.4% for self-support. The correct values for computer sciences in these categories are 23.5%, 5.9%, 0.5%, 14.7%, 7.3%, and 48.1%.

Appendix table 2-5. Data in the rows "Mathematics/statistics" and "Computer sciences" are reversed. The correct values for mathematics/statistics are 16,885 and 100.0% for all mechanisms, 1,967 and 11.6% for research assistantship, 1,711 and 10.1% for fellowship, 139 and 0.8% for traineeship, 8,651 and 51.2% for teaching assistantship, 639 and 3.8% for other, and 3,778 and 22.4% for self-support. The correct values for computer sciences in these categories are 32,198 and 100.0%, 7,556 and 23.5%, 1,887 and 5.9%, 174 and 0.5%, 4,735 and 14.7%, 2,366 and 7.3%, and 15,480 and 48.1%.

Page 2-13. Information for "Mathematics/statistics" and "Computer sciences" was reversed. The corrected sentences should read as follows: In mathematics/statistics, more than half (51%) of full-time students were supported primarily through TAs and another 22% were self-supported. Full-time students in computer sciences and the social and behavioral sciences were mainly self-supporting (48% for both) or received TAs (15% and 19%, respectively).


Updated 6 July 2012

Science and Engineering Indicators 2012
Chapter 6

Figure 6-14. The legend for the third bar of each category is mislabeled 2009. It represents 2010 data. The year range in the figure title should be corrected from 2008–09 to 2008–10.


Updated 16 February 2012

Science and Engineering Indicators 2012
Chapter 2

Table 2-12. Data in the rows "Engineering" and "Science" are reversed for China, India, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Chapter 3

Page 3-45. Salary differentials were incorrectly calculated for minorities. The correct percentages are as follows: American Indians/Alaska Natives earned 22% less than whites, blacks earned 22% less, and Hispanics 15% less.

Figure 3-12. The top four segments of the stacked bars are mislabeled. The correct labels, in order from top to bottom, are 4-year institutions, 2-year and precollege institutions, Federal government, and State/local government.

Appendix table 3-16. The table title should be corrected from "workers with highest degree in S&E field" to "scientists and engineers employed full time."

Chapter 5

Page 5-11. The appendix table reference in the "Industry funds" bullet is incorrect. It should be appendix table 4-3.

Figure 5-33. The units label was omitted. Units shown are percentages.

Chapter 8

Table 8-24. Table notes should be added as follows.

  • NOTES: S&E degrees conferred include bachelor's, master's, and doctorate. S&E degrees include agricultural; biological; computer; earth, atmospheric, and ocean; physical; and social sciences; mathematics, psychology, and engineering.

Table 8-44. The 2006 U.S. total for individuals in S&E occupations should be 5,407,710. The corrected total includes suppressed data to be consistent with totals presented in other years.

Table 8-48. Puerto Rico was incorrectly included in U.S. totals for academic S&E article output.

  • U.S. totals should be 137,430 for 1997, 148,511 for 2003, and 167,587 for 2008.
  • U.S. values for academic articles/1,000 academic doctorate holders should be 559 for 1997, 534 for 2003, and 579 for 2008.

Table 8-49. Puerto Rico was incorrectly included in U.S. totals for academic S&E article output.

  • U.S. totals should be 136,897 for 2000, 142,320 for 2004, and 162,687 for 2009.

Table 8-51. The source line should be corrected from 31 December 2009 to 31 December 2010.

Science and Engineering Indicators Digest 2012
Page 4. The Asia 10 economies are incorrectly identified in the section "B. Where?" The correct list is China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand.

Close