Conducting research in conservation: a social science perspective
Impact in
- Ecology 113
Classified as
- Authors
- Helen Newing
- Journal
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent)
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w11322447 →Countries where authors are citing Conducting research in conservation: a social science perspective
This map shows the geographic impact of Conducting research in conservation: a social science perspective. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Conducting research in conservation: a social science perspective with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Conducting research in conservation: a social science perspective more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Conducting research in conservation: a social science perspective
This network shows the impact of Conducting research in conservation: a social science perspective. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Conducting research in conservation: a social science perspective.
About Conducting research in conservation: a social science perspective
This paper, published in 2010, received 263 indexed citations . Written by Helen Newing covering the research area of Archeology and Conservation. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Ecology (113 citations), Global and Planetary Change (89 citations), Social Psychology (55 citations), Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law (46 citations) and Plant Science (37 citations). Published in Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent).
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w11322447.