By the time they graduate, young professionals should know the leaders in the field and have an appreciation for the pecking order of journals in which their research should be published.
However, the order of journals in the top ranks was different in each subgroup.
This was achieved by ordering the list of journals from England with computer-generated random numbers and screening the journals against inclusion and exclusion criteria until the required number was identified.
As I wrote last week, on July 23rd, Judge Judith Bartnoff took the rare and unwarranted step of ordering the Journal not to disclose which government agency was investigating the company, a fact it had learned from publicly available court records (records that should have been sealed, but weren't).
An empirical law for the rank-order behavior of journal impact factors is found.
It shows the average number of papers per researcher in the top 10% of journals ordered by decreasing impact factor and the top 10% most cited papers, using first all professors (A,B) and then only active professors (C,D).
Publication errors were classified as those which claimed improper order of authorship, journal citation, or those which could not be found with the above techniques.
Databases are listed in order of the number of journals indexed that were not indexed by databases already considered, thus providing a clearer picture of the cumulative coverage if databases were searched in the order listed, which is the most efficient order for this collection.
In order to evaluate the diversity of journals represented among the 100 most-cited papers in each field, I considered traditional indices of alpha diversity (unevenness among represented journals) for these journal ecosystems.
Ertürk and V. Karakaya, n-tuplet fixed point theorems for contractive type mappings in partially ordered metric spaces, Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2013, 2013:196] have gaps.
