Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice
Impact in
- Ecology 104
Classified as
- Authors
- Helen Newing
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w77223094 →Countries where authors are citing Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice
This map shows the geographic impact of Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice. 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: Social Science Methods and Practice 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: Social Science Methods and Practice more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice
This network shows the impact of Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice. 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: Social Science Methods and Practice.
About Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice
This paper, published in 2010, received 274 indexed citations . Written by Helen Newing covering the research area of Museology, Archeology and Conservation. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Ecology (104 citations), Global and Planetary Change (94 citations), Social Psychology (42 citations), Nature and Landscape Conservation (38 citations) and Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law (37 citations).
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/w77223094.