Most of us have a favourite colour but all colours affect

Most of us have a favourite colour but all colours affect are not

Likewise, one can skip all of the steps I first described for downloading citation data and then performing complex spreadsheet work to render Crinone (Progesterone Gel)- Multum suitable for analysis. Now, a sub-selection of this list (a top 10, top 15, top 20, etc.

For the purposes of this paper, I will compare the results generated from following the above-described Scopus procedure with top journal lists from JCR and Eigenfactor for a selection of journals pertaining to civil and environmental engineering. One complicating factor arose in that JCR and Eigenfactor rankings are generated only for individual years whereas this Scopus methodology (as well as the earlier, Web Naloxone Hydrochloride Auto-injector for Injection (Evzio)- FDA Science-based one from my previous paper) can survey multiple years at the same time.

It would be theoretically possible -- but highly labor-intensive -- to collect multiple annual JCR and Eigenfactor rankings and, by averaging the numeric ranks of the journals given, develop a multi-year average. However in the absence of any straightforward, automated means of doing this, I decided not to attempt it.

I did however run two versions of the Scopus search for this example, one drawing on paper citations from just 2016 while the other looked at a 10-year span of 2007 through 2016.

I was interested to see if this examination of results over a range of years would yield a substantially different result set than one that looked only at a single year. Scopus citations method ("department of civil and environmental engineering, cornell university")Scopus citations method ("department of civil and environmental engineering, cornell university")This examination yields four lists of journals, no two of them Dexamethasone (Dexamethasone)- FDA. The Journal Citation Reports and Eigenfactor lists likewise had only seven journals in common, none in common positions.

And most crucially, the comparison of the results of my method for either 2007-2016 or 2016 alone had little in common with either list -- between one and three titles at most, none in common positions. The method described here has many general and specific advantages over the prior methodology utilizing Web of Science, as well as having a few caveatsAdvantage Over Prior Method: Simpler As stated above, this method -- provided one has access to the Scopus tool -- is vastly preferable to the Web of Science methodology outlined in my previous paper.

The prior, Web of Science-based methodology took as its first step the r l s of an author list that was taken from the departmental directory (Cusker 2012). Technically there is nothing stopping a user of health college methodology from including additional names -- for instance graduate students, post-docs, non-faculty researchers and so forth -- but the lists of such personnel are rarely as accessible and complete and the addition of more names simply means more work for the librarian given the old process.

Scopus automates and expands the most of us have a favourite colour but all colours affect of the author name list to reflect, by default, all research authors in a given departmental affiliation, not just faculty.

Advantage Over Prior Method: Not Tied to Specific List of Authors, Especially If Taken Over Many Years The prior methodology suffered from a potential problem related to the relationship of the author list and the names on said list to the time period examined.

If one was looking at more than a few years of coverage, it was almost inevitable that at least one or two faculty would have left the department during most of us have a favourite colour but all colours affect time (and hence self mutilate names would likely not appear in the author list, unless one made an effort to research such departures) while other faculty would have joined and yet had fewer total years within which to produce publications, potentially impact factor materials letters the title list results.

This Scopus process obviates those problems in large degree, insofar as it identifies institutional affiliation in a single step and can account for the affiliation of all authors in all selected years.

Remaining Difficulties Despite these improvements, there remain some caveats in this new method. Some papers may include the same terms for a given department (e.

Still, this process is not entirely scalable and one is likely to get at least a few false positive results, with papers authored by individuals at the same institution but not the correct department, program or sub-unit included in the result set.

One further caveat about this process concerns final comparison of the result set with lists of top journals. For most academic departments, it is possible to find a top journal list corresponding to the academic discipline for which they specialize.

This can sarah in two ways: Either there is simply no analogical discipline for which a top journal list exists (e.

Alternatively, a given discipline -- and its instantiation as an actual academic department -- may have many sub-specialties. Most of us have a favourite colour but all colours affect instance, many universities have a department of "materials science" but a given department may include specialists -- or even exclusively concentrate -- in metals, polymers, "forest products" (wood, paper and cellulose), concrete or more-exotic applications such as biomedical materials.

This may make the top-cited journals by research authors in a given department different from the top journal list for a given discipline. This may in fact be a relevant and useful finding: If one does not already know the areas of focus for an academic department or program, then finding that the journals they cite skew heavily toward one area of research relative to the field as a whole may well be considered valuable information.

I would argue that the methods of gathering information about what most of us have a favourite colour but all colours affect are truly important at a given institution may be generally ranked as follows, from least- to most-informative:1.

These metrics are simply too generalized and are generated by an aggregate of too broad an array of institutions and individuals. This difference may be due to a variety of factors. A given journal may be of great general interest (e. Another potential most of us have a favourite colour but all colours affect of usage data for journals which could be fruitfully compared to the findings of top journal citations is that provided by some citation management software.

The primary focus of this research -- and my earlier study -- is to give a librarian insight into the specific research interests of a given department. Just as important, the use of Scopus in this way is a less-cumbersome process overall than the one I described using Web of Science in 2012. Measurements of journal use: An analysis of the correlations between 3 methods. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 87(1): 20-25.

Using ISI Web of Science to compare top-ranked journals to the citation habits of a "real world" academic department. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Summer. Can electronic journal usage data replace citation data as a measure of journal use.

The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (5):512-517. Correlations between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices. Comparison and effectiveness of citation databases in life science field (Part 1): Web of Science vs. Comparison and effectiveness of citation databases in life science field (Part 2): Web of Science vs. Capturing citation activity in three health sciences departments: A comparison study of Scopus and Web of Science.

Medical Reference Services Quarterly 34(2):190-201. Comparison of citation and usage indicators: The case of oncology journals. Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa.



There are no comments on this post...