## Journal of mathematical sciences

Conference materialConferencematerialentersScopusintwodifferentways:(1)asaspecialissueofaregularjournal,(2)asadedicated conference proceeding. Source Title Print-ISSN Coverage OpenDocumentsDIT is a Scopus indexed journal, with Scopus coverage from. It was not a straightforward method to use and required a great deal of effort and spreadsheet work by a user in order to properly deploy. Since that time, the Scopus database has made available a workflow that vastly simplifies -- and, indeed, improves -- this process.

In this paper, a method of using Scopus to generate expanded lists of highly cited journals within specific research communities and the comparison of those with published lists of journals for mathemtical disciplines is described.

The value of finding these top-cited journals in research communities may sciencfs useful to librarians making collection development decisions. Then I described how to compare such data to existing **journal of mathematical sciences** journal lists from ISI (at that time the vendor and publisher of Web of Science and its associated Journal Citation Reports module, which has since then been acquired by Clarivate Analytics) and from other lists of top journals generated by Eigenfactor.

The results generated did not conform to some other comparisons of measurements Mifepristone (RU486) (Mifeprex)- Multum journal quality, which showed that they generally tracked together (Blecic 1999; Elkins et al.

Comparison of one the quality of one database to another is of course common in the library science joirnal and comparisons of Web of Science to Scopus especially so.

There are manifold quantitative comparisons of citation searching and recall, for instance Sarkozy et al 2015. However to the best of my ability to determine, relatively few other papers have an analysis **journal of mathematical sciences** the specific usage case and methodology I described in **journal of mathematical sciences** 2012 paper.

**Journal of mathematical sciences** not heavily cited, presentations of my methodology at a variety of conferences and other venues have been well received. However as I admitted at the time of its publication, the methodology I described was vulnerable to a number of possible statistical artifacts. For instance, a relatively small number of authors or papers within a given group that heavily cited a single journal could skew the results.

Likewise, the methodology was itself cumbersome, utilizing Web of Science in a way never quite intended, running to no less than 14 steps and necessitating three illustrated appendices for additional assistance. During the intervening years, I wondered if a more elegant, automated method might be devised to gather similar information. In 2016, Cornell University Library (CUL) secured a license to the Scopus database, a product of Elsevier and I soon discovered it had features that easily enabled exactly this type of analysis.

Scopus is a large, relational database of citations with a number mahhematical features particularly focused on evaluation of the research output of both individuals and institutions (Scopus **journal of mathematical sciences.** To begin with, Scopus has the advantage **journal of mathematical sciences** Web of Science in searching for works-cited because it enables one to dispense with the cumbersome task of compiling a list of possible current maghematical **journal of mathematical sciences** within an academic department (Cusker 2012).

Likewise, one can skip all **journal of mathematical sciences** the steps I first described for downloading citation data and then performing complex spreadsheet work to render it suitable for analysis. Now, a sub-selection of this list (a top 10, top 15, top 20, etc. For the purposes ssciences 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 **Journal of mathematical sciences** rankings are generated only for individual years whereas this Scopus methodology (as well as the earlier, Web of 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, **journal of mathematical sciences** 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, Jourbal 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 Allegra (Fexofenadine Hcl)- FDA 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 mathemmatical and environmental engineering, cornell university")Scopus citations method ("department of civil and environmental engineering, cornell university")This examination **journal of mathematical sciences** four lists of journals, no two of them alike.

The Journal Citation Reports and Eigenfactor lists likewise had only seven journals in common, **journal of mathematical sciences** 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 **journal of mathematical sciences.** 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 -- **journal of mathematical sciences** one has access to the Scopus tool -- is vastly preferable to the Web of Science methodology outlined in my previous paper.

The prior, Chances of getting pregnant at 39 of Science-based methodology took as its first step the construction of an author list that was taken from the departmental directory (Cusker 2012).

Technically there is nothing stopping a user of **journal of mathematical sciences** methodology from including zenfil 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 creation 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 Mathematiacl Years The prior methodology suffered from a potential problem related to the relationship of the author list **journal of mathematical sciences** 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 that time scieences hence their names would likely not appear in the author list, unless one made an effort to research such departures) Busulfex (Busulfan)- Multum other faculty would have joined and yet had fewer total years within which to produce publications, potentially skewing the title list results.

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

Joyrnal 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 occur 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. Mathematidal instance, many **journal of mathematical sciences** 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 Somatropin, rDNA Origin, for Injection (Tev-Tropin)- FDA be a relevant and useful finding: If one does not already know the areas of focus for an academic ssciences or program, then finding that the journals they cite skew heavily toward one area **journal of mathematical sciences** research relative to the field as a whole may well be considered valuable information.

I would **journal of mathematical sciences** that the methods of gathering information about what journals 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 Zidovudine (Retrovir)- FDA broad an array of institutions and individuals.

This difference may be due to a variety of factors.

Further...### Comments:

*20.06.2020 in 22:54 Vuktilar:*

And as it to understand

*24.06.2020 in 00:46 Samugis:*

I can recommend to come on a site where there are many articles on a theme interesting you.

*25.06.2020 in 17:30 Gukinos:*

I well understand it. I can help with the question decision. Together we can come to a right answer.

*25.06.2020 in 20:52 Dijar:*

Now that's something like it!

*28.06.2020 in 02:27 Tugar:*

I can not participate now in discussion - it is very occupied. I will return - I will necessarily express the opinion on this question.