Scientific subject categories of Web of Knowledge ranked according to their multidimensional prestige of influential journals

2012 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 1017-1029 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. García ◽  
Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez ◽  
J. Fdez-Valdivia
2013 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 615-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. García ◽  
Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez ◽  
J. Fdez-Valdivia ◽  
Nicolas Robinson-García ◽  
Daniel Torres-Salinas

2007 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote ◽  
Felipe Zapico-Alonso ◽  
María Eugenia Espinosa-Calvo ◽  
Rocío Gómez-Crisóstomo ◽  
Félix de Moya-Anegón

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jielan Ding ◽  
Zhesi Shen ◽  
Per Ahlgren ◽  
Tobias Jeppsson ◽  
David Minguillo ◽  
...  

AbstractUnderstanding the nature and value of scientific collaboration is essential for sound management and proactive research policies. One component of collaboration is the composition and diversity of contributing authors. This study explores how ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration affects scientific impact, by presenting a conceptual model to connect ethnic diversity, based on author names, with scientific impact, assuming novelty and audience diversity as mediators. The model also controls for affiliated country diversity and affiliated country size. Using path modeling, we apply the model to the Web of Science subject categories Nanoscience & Nanotechnology, Ecology and Information Science & Library. For all three subject categories, and regardless of if control variables are considered or not, we find a weak positive relationship between ethnic diversity and scientific impact. The relationship is weaker, however, when control variables are included. For all three fields, the mediated effect through audience diversity is substantially stronger than the mediated effect through novelty in the relationship, and the former effect is much stronger than the direct effect between the ethnic diversity and scientific impact. Our findings further suggest that ethnic diversity is more associated with short-term scientific impact compared to long-term scientific impact.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 105
Author(s):  
Giovanna Badia

A Review of: Grabowsky, A. (2015). Library instruction in communication disorders: Which databases should be prioritized? Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 79(Winter). doi:10.5062/F4707ZFB Abstract Objective – There are two objectives in this research article. The first is to identify databases that librarians usually recommend to students for searching topics in communication disorders. The second is to compare these databases’ indexing of core journals in communication disorders, with the purpose of ascertaining which databases should be taught first in a one-shot information literacy session. Design – A comparative database evaluation using citation analysis. Setting – 10 universities in the United States of America offering LibGuides for their audiology or speech language pathology programs. Subjects – Six databases: CINAHL, ERIC, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA), PsycINFO, PubMed/Medline, and Web of Science/Web of Knowledge. Methods – The author selected 10 universities from the top 20 included in the graduate school rankings for audiology and/or speech language pathology from U.S. News & World Report. The 10 universities selected were chosen because their librarians published online subject guides using LibGuides that suggest databases students can use for searching topics in communication disorders. The LibGuides were then examined to identify the most popular recommended databases that the author subsequently used for comparing coverage of core journals in communication disorders. The author generated a core journals list by selecting the top 20 audiology and speech-language pathology journals from Journal Citation Reports, SCImago Journal & Country Rank, and Google Scholar Top Publications. These three sources produced lists of influential journals in different subject areas by looking at the number of citations the journals have received, alongside other factors. The author searched for 33 journals in total in each of the subject databases previously identified. Main Results – The author found six databases that were mentioned in the LibGuides of at least half the universities investigated. None of the 6 databases indexed all 33 core journals. The breakdown of the number of journals indexed in each database is as follows: Web of Science/Web of Knowledge indexed 32 of 33 core journals (97%); PubMed/Medline indexed 28 (85%); PsycINFO indexed 27 (82%); CINAHL indexed 25 (76%); LLBA indexed 23 (70%); and ERIC indexed 9 journals (27%). Conclusion – The author discovered that pairing certain databases allows for coverage of all 33 core journals. These pairings are: PubMed/Medline with PsycINFO, PubMed/Medline with LLBA, PubMed/Medline with Web of Science, Web of Science with PsycINFO, and Web of Science with LLBA. The author suggests that librarians can create instructional materials for all recommended databases, “but use information from this study together with institution-specific factors to decide which databases to prioritize in face-to-face instruction sessions for speech-language pathology and audiology students” (Conclusion).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document