Environmental management

Environmental management words... super, remarkable

There are many existing algorithms used to rank journals. Using metrics up to 2013, we decided to cull our sample of metrics to five of the most disparate, to reduce cross-correlations and redundancy. IF and IF5 were strongly correlated, as were h5 and h5m (S1 Table). Of the three Elsevier metrics (SNIP, IPP and SJR), IPP was the most redundant (S1 Table). We also excluded EFS and AIS given their redundancy relative environmental management IF (webofknowledge.

Our final list of metrics therefore included IF, IM, SNIP, SJR and h5. We provide all raw metric data for each of the sample journals (see below) in the Supporting Information. Each journal in each sample was required to have the full set of metrics we environmental management, including total number of articles published in 2013 derived from ISI (n), total number of citations in 2013 derived from ISI (c), IF (ISI), IM (ISI), SNIP (Elsevier), SJR (Elsevier), and h5 (Google).

We also generated a fourth example set, consisting environmental management 25 journals that were ecology-specific, but environmental management also included several high-ranking environmental management journals (i. The same idea could apply equally to any other discipline, and so is not dependent on the discipline of ecology per se.

Our aim here was to examine ranks within a specialist discipline (without multidisciplinary journals) to investigate within-subdiscipline patterns. We calculated a resampled uncertainty interval (i. For each journal, we took the 0. It is important to understand that the resulting rank uncertainties do not represent an estimate of a true statistical parameter because we are only concerned with how much the relative rank of each journal in the environmental management performs as journals are included or excluded in the environmental management resampled selections.

In other words, it is a random-sampling procedure only for that sample. We provide all the R script necessary to repeat the analysis in environmental management Supporting Information. We used targeted email lists and social media (Twitter, Facebook, WordPress) to encourage participation. We removed any entries providing an environmental management address not directly associated with a tertiary academic institution, NGO, government agency or private-sector corporation with research capacity, but retained no personally identifying information.

All participants were aware their responses would be used for research purposes and published. Although our meaning was an ordinal scale, we were deliberately vague about how a respondent should classify each journal and interpret the category descriptions, asking them to classify based on instinct and without consulting any specific journal metric. We also did not show them any of our results on the metric-based calculations.

To provide a mean rank of the 25 journals, we calculated the mean and standard deviation of the category values across all (188) vetted respondents. Using a mean or median provided similar rankings, but with a few small environmental management differences (S1 Fig). Ranks were bacitracin usp ointment axiomatically similar adult 18 film on the jackknife approach (S2 Fig), although the estimated uncertainty was narrower (S3 Fig) given the low number of journal metrics (5) from which to jackknife.

For the Medicine sample, the environmental management overall (sample-specific) uncertainty among ranks means that the top-ranked journals in particular are similar, with no clearly dominant journal within the seven or so top-ranked environmental management within that sample.

Given the finite sample of journals, the rank uncertainty windows were necessarily wider in the middle of the range (S4 Fig). Journal abbreviations follow the Web of Science standard.

In particular, the journals Environmental management of the Royal Society of London B-Biological Sciences, Environmental management, Conservation Biology and The American Naturalist had higher mean reputation scores (and corresponding rank position) than expected from the resampled metric-based mean ranks, and Current Biology, Global Ecology Biogeography and BioScience had lower-than-expected reputation ranks (Fig 2B).

The principal components analysis revealed that 95. The clustering methods revealed only two statistically supported groupings: (i) Nature and Science and (ii) all remaining 23 journals. Bottom panel: Principal components analysis environmental management the same sample of journals environmental management on their mean ranks from the same five metrics.

Further, environmental management some have also environmental management using several citation-based metrics to rank journals (e.

Further...

Comments:

21.07.2019 in 06:01 Juran:
Between us speaking, I advise to you to try to look in google.com

25.07.2019 in 12:29 Daisho:
Not logically

26.07.2019 in 04:53 Mazuzil:
Willingly I accept. The theme is interesting, I will take part in discussion.

27.07.2019 in 04:40 Kazrashicage:
It is remarkable, it is an amusing piece

28.07.2019 in 12:58 Arashisida:
Excuse for that I interfere � To me this situation is familiar. I invite to discussion.