Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
journal names
Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Top-3 citing journals

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(233 citations)
Top-3 organizations

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(163 publications)

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
(116 publications)

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
(114 publications)
Top-3 countries
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 620

Meta-agent programs
Dix J., Subrahmanian V.S., Pick G.
There are numerous applications where an agent a needs to reason about the beliefs of another agent, as well as about the actions that other agents may take. In [T. Eiter, V.S. Subrahmanian, G. Pick, Heterogeneous Active Agents, I: Semantics, Artificial Intelligence 108(1–2) (1999) 179–255] the concept of an agent program is introduced, and a language within which the operating principles of an agent can be declaratively encoded on top of imperative data structures is defined. In this paper we first introduce certain belief data structures that an agent needs to maintain. Then we introduce the concept of a Meta Agent Program ( map ), that extends the framework of Refs. [T. Eiter, V.S. Subrahmanian, Heterogeneous Active Agents, II: Algorithms and Complexity, Artificial Intelligence 108(1–2) (1999) 257–307; loc. cit.] so as to allow agents to perform metareasoning. We build a formal semantics for map s, and show how this semantics supports not just beliefs agent a may have about agent b 's state, but also beliefs about agents b 's beliefs about agent c 's actions, beliefs about b 's beliefs about agent c 's state, and so on. Finally, we provide a transansation that takes any map as input and converts it into an agent program such that there is a one–one correspondence between the semantics of the map and the semantics of the resulting agent program. This correspondence allows an implementation of map s to be built on top of an implementation of agent programs.

Index
The Journal of Logic Programming
,
2000
,
citations by CoLab: 0


Decidability of logic program semantics and applications to testing
Ruggieri S.
In this paper, we investigate the decidability problem of logic program semantics and observables, focusing in particular on the least Herbrand model (or M -semantics), the C -semantics, and the S -semantics. We introduce bounded logic programs , and show that they coincide with programs such that every ground query has finitely many SLD-refutations via any selection rule. In particular, bounded programs strictly include the well-studied class of acceptable logic programs. We show that the mentioned declarative semantics are decidable when considering acceptable programs and programs bounded by recursive level mappings. Interestingly, the decision procedures have direct implementations in the logic programming paradigm itself as Prolog meta-programs. We relate semantics decidability to program testing. In our terminology, the testing problem consists of checking whether or not the formal semantics of a program includes a given finite set of atoms. With this definition, semantics decidability and the testing problem are equivalent. The decision procedures are then recognized to be automatic tools for testing logic programs. The meta-programming approach reveals to be successful in modeling extensions such as arithmetic built-in's, negation, modular programming and some other declarative semantics. Also, we present some preliminary experimental results and an efficient compilation-oriented approach that overcome the overhead due to meta-programming.

More on tractable disjunctive Datalog
Ben-Eliyahu-Zohary R., Palopoli L., Zemlyanker V.
Sometimes it is more natural to express knowledge in disjunctive Datalog rather than in ordinary Datalog. Several highly complex variants of disjunctive Datalog have been proposed in the past and their expressive power has been studied. In this paper we investigate tractable fragments of disjunctive Datalog. Algorithms are presented to answer queries defined using these fragments and their complexity analyzed. Furthermore, the expressive power of these tractable subsets is studied. The most expressive of the languages considered here is shown to express, in some sense explained in the paper, all polynomial time queries. This is the first identified fragment of disjunctive Datalog with this property.

Pair-sharing over rational trees
King A.
Sharing information is useful in specialising, optimising and parallelising logic programs and thus sharing analysis is an important topic of both abstract interpretation and logic programming. Sharing analyses infer which pairs of program variables can never be bound to terms that contain a common variable. We generalise a classic pair-sharing analysis from Herbrand unification to trace sharing over rational tree constraints. This is useful for reasoning about programs written in SICStus and Prolog-III because these languages use rational tree unification as the default equation solver.

Index
The Journal of Logic Programming
,
2000
,
citations by CoLab: 0


Argumentation-based abduction in disjunctive logic programming
Wang K.
In this paper, we propose an argumentation-based semantic framework, called DAS, for disjunctive logic programming. The basic idea is to translate a disjunctive logic program into an argumentation-theoretic framework. One unique feature of our proposed framework is to consider the disjunctions of negative literals as possible assumptions so as to represent incomplete information. In our framework, three semantics preferred disjunctive hypothesis (PDH), complete disjunctive hypothesis (CDH) and well-founded disjunctive hypothesis (WFDH) are defined by three kinds of acceptable hypotheses to represent credulous, moderate and skeptical reasoning in artificial intelligence (AI), respectively. Furthermore, our semantic framework can be extended to a wider class than that of disjunctive programs (called bi-disjunctive logic programs). In addition to being a first serious attempt in establishing an argumentation-theoretic framework for disjunctive logic programming, DAS integrates and naturally extends many key semantics, such as the minimal models, extended generalized closed world assumption (EGCWA), the well-founded model, and the disjunctive stable models. In particular, novel and interesting argumentation-theoretic characterizations of the EGCWA and the disjunctive stable semantics are shown. Thus the framework presented in this paper does not only provide a new way of performing argumentation (abduction) in disjunctive deductive databases, but also is a simple, intuitive and unifying semantic framework for disjunctive logic programming.

Dynamic updates of non-monotonic knowledge bases
Alferes J.J., Leite J.A., Pereira L.M., Przymusinska H., Przymusinski T.C.
In this paper we investigate updates of knowledge bases represented by logic programs. In order to represent negative information, we use generalized logic programs which allow default negation not only in rule bodies but also in their heads. We start by introducing the notion of an update P⊕U of one logic program P by another logic program U . Subsequently, we provide a precise semantic characterization of P⊕U , and study some basic properties of program updates. In particular, we show that our update programs generalize the notion of interpretation update. We then extend this notion to compositional sequences of logic programs updates P 1 ⊕P 2 ⊕⋯, defining a dynamic program update, and thereby introducing the paradigm of dynamic logic programming . This paradigm significantly facilitates modularization of logic programming, and thus modularization of non-monotonic reasoning as a whole. Specifically, suppose that we are given a set of logic program modules, each describing a different state of our knowledge of the world. Different states may represent different time points or different sets of priorities or perhaps even different viewpoints. Consequently, program modules may contain mutually contradictory as well as overlapping information. The role of the dynamic program update is to employ the mutual relationships existing between different modules to precisely determine, at any given module composition stage, the declarative as well as the procedural semantics of the combined program resulting from the modules.

A simple polynomial groundness analysis for logic programs
Heaton A., Abo-Zaed M., Codish M., King A.
The domain of positive Boolean functions, Pos , is by now well established for the analysis of the variable dependencies that arise within logic programs. Analyses based on Pos that use binary decision diagrams (BDDs) have been shown to be efficient for a wide range of practical programs. However, independent of the representation, a Pos analysis can never come with any efficiency guarantees because of its potential exponential behaviour. This paper considers groundness analysis based on a simple subdomain of Pos and compares its precision with that of Pos .

Index
The Journal of Logic Programming
,
2000
,
citations by CoLab: 0


An abstract machine for efficiently computing queries to well-founded models
Sagonas K., Swift T., Warren D.S.
The well-founded semantics has gained wide acceptance partly because it is a skeptical semantics. That is, the well-founded model posits as unknown atoms which are deemed true or false in other formalisms such as stable models. This skepticism makes the well-founded model not only useful in itself, but also suitable as a basis for other forms of non-monotonic reasoning. For instance, since algorithms to compute stable models are intractable, the atoms relevant to such algorithms can be limited to those undefined in the well-founded model. Thus, an engine that efficiently evaluates programs according to the well-founded semantics can be seen as a prerequisite to practical systems for non-monotonic reasoning. This paper describes the architecture of the Warren Abstract Machine (WAM)-based abstract machine underlying the XSB system. This abstract machine, called the SLG-WAM, uses tabling to efficiently compute the well-founded semantics of non-ground normal logic programs in a goal-directed way. To do so, the SLG-WAM requires sophisticated extensions to its core tabling engine for fixed-order stratified programs. A mechanism must be implemented to represent answers that are neither true nor false, and the delay and simplification operations – which serve to break and to resolve cycles through negation, must be implemented. We describe fully these extensions to our tabling engine, and demonstrate the efficiency of our implementation in two ways. First, we present a theorem that bounds the need for delay to those literals which are not dynamically stratified for a fixed-order computation. Second, we present performance results that indicate that the overhead of delay and simplification to Prolog – or tabled – evaluations is minimal.

Introduction to the constraint language NCL
Zhou J.
The design, implementation and application of a natural constraint language NCL are presented. At the solver level, to support the solving of a large scope of combinatorial problems, a rich set of conventional constraints is defined within a constraint framework that strongly combines Boolean logic, integer constraints and set reasoning over finite domains. The basic computation model for solving conjunctions of elementary constraints with possible existential and universal quantifications is described using rewrite rules. At the language level, to upgrade the expressive power, a natural syntax (context-dependent), which completely adopts mathematical notations, is designed. To enhance the constraint handling capability, quantification, logical switch, referencing mechanism, global/dynamic constraints, meta expressions, multi-criteria optimization, and search specifications are cooperatively introduced in a single constraint system. Compared to existing modeling languages, a strong feature of NCL is: Data, constraints and control are fully integrated and are clearly separable. Especially, though NCL deals with several data types such as Boolean, integer, set, index, reference, array and tuple, there is no need to declare data explicitly. This context-sensitive data typing makes NCL programs direct, concise and liberal.

Index
The Journal of Logic Programming
,
2000
,
citations by CoLab: 0


Abducing through negation as failure: stable models within the independent choice logic
Poole D.
The independent choice logic (ICL) is part of a project to combine logic and decision/game theory into a coherent framework. The ICL has a simple possible-worlds semantics characterised by independent choices and an acyclic logic program that specifies the consequences of these choices. This paper gives an abductive characterization of the ICL. The ICL is defined model-theoretically, but we show that it is naturally abductive: the set of explanations of a proposition g is a concise description of the worlds in which g is true. We give an algorithm for computing explanations and show it is sound and complete with respect to the possible-worlds semantics. What is unique about this approach is that the explanations of the negation of g can be derived from the explanations of g . The use of probabilities over choices in this framework and going beyond acyclic logic programs are also discussed.

Computing abduction by using TMS with top-down expectation
Iwayama N., Satoh K.
We present a method to compute abduction in logic programming. We translate an abductive framework into a normal logic program with integrity constraints and show the correspondence between generalized stable models and stable models for the translation of the abductive framework. Abductive explanations for an observation can be found from the stable models for the translated program by adding a special kind of integrity constraint for the observation. Then, we show a bottom-up procedure to compute stable models for a normal logic program with integrity constraints. The proposed procedure excludes the unnecessary construction of stable models on early stages of the procedure by checking integrity constraints during the construction and by deriving some facts from integrity constraints. Although a bottom-up procedure has the disadvantage of constructing stable models not related to an observation for computing abductive explanations in general, our procedure avoids the disadvantage by expecting which rule should be used for satisfaction of integrity constraints and starting bottom-up computation based on the expectation. This expectation is not only a technique to scope rule selection but also an indispensable part of our stable model construction because the expectation is done for dynamically generated constraints as well as the constraint for the observation.
Top-100
Citing journals
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
|
|
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
313 citations, 5.25%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
233 citations, 3.91%
|
|
Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology
202 citations, 3.39%
|
|
Journal of Documentation
167 citations, 2.8%
|
|
Scientometrics
126 citations, 2.11%
|
|
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
97 citations, 1.63%
|
|
Aslib Journal of Information Management
85 citations, 1.43%
|
|
Information Processing and Management
79 citations, 1.32%
|
|
Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
63 citations, 1.06%
|
|
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
54 citations, 0.91%
|
|
Journal of Information Science
52 citations, 0.87%
|
|
Online Information Review
50 citations, 0.84%
|
|
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science
48 citations, 0.8%
|
|
Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services
48 citations, 0.8%
|
|
Library and Information Science Research
47 citations, 0.79%
|
|
Electronic Library
46 citations, 0.77%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
42 citations, 0.7%
|
|
Robots in Academic Libraries
42 citations, 0.7%
|
|
Journal of Medical Internet Research
41 citations, 0.69%
|
|
PLoS ONE
41 citations, 0.69%
|
|
Communications in Computer and Information Science
40 citations, 0.67%
|
|
Library Hi Tech
38 citations, 0.64%
|
|
Journal of Informetrics
38 citations, 0.64%
|
|
Journal of Academic Librarianship
36 citations, 0.6%
|
|
IEEE Access
28 citations, 0.47%
|
|
International Journal on Digital Libraries
26 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Information Discovery and Delivery
24 citations, 0.4%
|
|
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
22 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Sustainability
21 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
21 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Computers in Human Behavior
20 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Behaviour and Information Technology
18 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Computer Supported Cooperative Work
17 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
15 citations, 0.25%
|
|
ACM Transactions on Information Systems
14 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Interacting with Computers
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
International Journal of Human Computer Studies
12 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Procedia Computer Science
12 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Library Quarterly
12 citations, 0.2%
|
|
ACM Computing Surveys
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
International Journal of Information Management
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Internet Research
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Information Society
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Health Communication
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
International Information and Library Review
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Studies in Computational Intelligence
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Expert Systems with Applications
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Program electronic library and information systems
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Library Review
10 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Digital Library Perspectives
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Library Metadata
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Information Technology and People
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Archival Science
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Advances in E-Business Research Series
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Education and Information Technologies
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Human-Computer Interaction
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Libri
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Information Development
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Information (Switzerland)
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Social Media and Society
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Information Communication and Society
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
IFLA Journal
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Web Librarianship
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Aslib Proceedings
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Data and Information Management
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Handbook of Research on Teaching Methods in Language Translation and Interpretation
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Enhancing Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research with Technology
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Education for Information
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Knowledge Management
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Government Information Quarterly
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Computers and Education
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Concurrency Computation Practice and Experience
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Journal of Business Research
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Artificial Intelligence Review
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Electronics (Switzerland)
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Records Management Journal
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Science and Technology Libraries
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Current Psychology
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Data Science Journal
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Information and Management
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
SAGE Open
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Multimedia Tools and Applications
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
F1000Research
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
|
Citing publishers
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
|
|
Wiley
824 citations, 13.82%
|
|
Springer Nature
818 citations, 13.72%
|
|
Emerald
617 citations, 10.35%
|
|
Elsevier
557 citations, 9.34%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
443 citations, 7.43%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
329 citations, 5.52%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
316 citations, 5.3%
|
|
SAGE
249 citations, 4.18%
|
|
IGI Global
193 citations, 3.24%
|
|
MDPI
104 citations, 1.74%
|
|
JMIR Publications
76 citations, 1.27%
|
|
Oxford University Press
53 citations, 0.89%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
46 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
44 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
42 citations, 0.7%
|
|
25 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Morgan & Claypool Publishers
23 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
21 citations, 0.35%
|
|
OpenEdition
16 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
15 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
14 citations, 0.23%
|
|
IOS Press
14 citations, 0.23%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
13 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Ubiquity Press
11 citations, 0.18%
|
|
World Scientific
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
SciELO
9 citations, 0.15%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
8 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
7 citations, 0.12%
|
|
IOP Publishing
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
F1000 Research
6 citations, 0.1%
|
|
MIT Press
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
PeerJ
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
CAIRN
5 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
4 citations, 0.07%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
4 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Polish Librarians' Association
4 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
King Saud University
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
AIP Publishing
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Centro Nacional de Informacion y Documentacion Cientifica
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Russian Institute for Scientific and Technical Information - VINITI RAS
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Bristol University Press
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Japan Society of Kansei Engineering
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Institute of Electronics, Information and Communications Engineers (IEICE)
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Hans Publishers
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Journal of Graduate Medical Education
3 citations, 0.05%
|
|
EDP Sciences
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Trans Tech Publications
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Pensoft Publishers
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
EPI SCP
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Tsinghua University Press
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Masaryk University Press
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Pluto Journals
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Unisa Press
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IAE School of Management Montpellier University
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
BMJ
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
ASME International
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Science Alert
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Korean Society for Information Management
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Turan University
2 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Marketing Association
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
University of California Press
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Brill
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Physiological Society
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Duke University Press
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
The Royal Society
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
International Journal of Information and Education Technology
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
University of Illinois Press
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Real Estate Society
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Meteorological Society
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
University of Warsaw
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
University of York
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
McFarland & Co.
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
American Physical Society (APS)
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
proceedings of the vldb endowment
1 citation, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
|
Publishing organizations
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
163 publications, 8.57%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
116 publications, 6.1%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
114 publications, 5.99%
|
|
University of Washington
93 publications, 4.89%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
91 publications, 4.78%
|
|
Florida State University
87 publications, 4.57%
|
|
Indiana University Bloomington
84 publications, 4.41%
|
|
Drexel University
81 publications, 4.26%
|
|
University of North Texas
81 publications, 4.26%
|
|
University of Michigan
76 publications, 3.99%
|
|
Syracuse University
68 publications, 3.57%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
68 publications, 3.57%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
64 publications, 3.36%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
62 publications, 3.26%
|
|
University of Tennessee
57 publications, 3%
|
|
University of Toronto
52 publications, 2.73%
|
|
University of Missouri
51 publications, 2.68%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
47 publications, 2.47%
|
|
Kent State University
46 publications, 2.42%
|
|
Western University
38 publications, 2%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
37 publications, 1.94%
|
|
McGill University
35 publications, 1.84%
|
|
Dalhousie University
33 publications, 1.73%
|
|
University of British Columbia
33 publications, 1.73%
|
|
University of South Florida
28 publications, 1.47%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
26 publications, 1.37%
|
|
University of Alberta
26 publications, 1.37%
|
|
University of Oklahoma
20 publications, 1.05%
|
|
Catholic University of America
18 publications, 0.95%
|
|
University of Arizona
17 publications, 0.89%
|
|
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
17 publications, 0.89%
|
|
University of Kentucky
16 publications, 0.84%
|
|
Wayne State University
15 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Université de Montréal
13 publications, 0.68%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
12 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Charles Sturt University
12 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Queensland University of Technology
11 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Texas A&M University
11 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University College Dublin
11 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Tampere University
10 publications, 0.53%
|
|
University of Technology Sydney
10 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Åbo Akademi University
10 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Louisiana State University
10 publications, 0.53%
|
|
North Carolina Central University
10 publications, 0.53%
|
|
University of Gothenburg
9 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Borås
9 publications, 0.47%
|
|
National Taiwan University
9 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Harvard University
9 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
9 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Bursa Uludağ University
8 publications, 0.42%
|
|
Bar-Ilan University
8 publications, 0.42%
|
|
McMaster University
8 publications, 0.42%
|
|
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
8 publications, 0.42%
|
|
University of Sheffield
8 publications, 0.42%
|
|
University of Alabama
8 publications, 0.42%
|
|
Aalto University
7 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of New South Wales
7 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Nanyang Technological University
7 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
7 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Tasmania
7 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Illinois at Chicago
7 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Queen's University Belfast
7 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Denver
7 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Wuhan University
6 publications, 0.32%
|
|
National Taiwan Normal University
6 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Cornell University
6 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Ohio State University
6 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Myongji University
6 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
6 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Victoria
6 publications, 0.32%
|
|
United States National Library of Medicine
6 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Texas Woman's University
6 publications, 0.32%
|
|
San Jose State University
6 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Iowa
6 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Lund University
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Oxford
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Yale University
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Glasgow
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Ewha Womans University
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
New York University
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Amsterdam
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Toronto Metropolitan University
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
University of Ljubljana
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Southern Connecticut State University
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Universidad de Santiago de Chile
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Valdosta State University
5 publications, 0.26%
|
|
Peking University
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
University College London
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
City, University of London
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
Loughborough University
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
University of Waikato
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
North Carolina State University
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
University of Hong Kong
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
Virginia Tech
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
University of California, Santa Barbara
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
St. Catherine University
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
Purdue University
4 publications, 0.21%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
|
Publishing countries
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
|
|
USA
|
USA, 1430, 75.14%
USA
1430 publications, 75.14%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 250, 13.14%
Canada
250 publications, 13.14%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 65, 3.42%
United Kingdom
65 publications, 3.42%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 55, 2.89%
Australia
55 publications, 2.89%
|
China
|
China, 49, 2.57%
China
49 publications, 2.57%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 27, 1.42%
Finland
27 publications, 1.42%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 24, 1.26%
Sweden
24 publications, 1.26%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 19, 1%
Republic of Korea
19 publications, 1%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 17, 0.89%
Denmark
17 publications, 0.89%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 16, 0.84%
Germany
16 publications, 0.84%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 15, 0.79%
Japan
15 publications, 0.79%
|
France
|
France, 13, 0.68%
France
13 publications, 0.68%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 11, 0.58%
Israel
11 publications, 0.58%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 11, 0.58%
Singapore
11 publications, 0.58%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 10, 0.53%
Brazil
10 publications, 0.53%
|
India
|
India, 9, 0.47%
India
9 publications, 0.47%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 9, 0.47%
Italy
9 publications, 0.47%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 9, 0.47%
Turkey
9 publications, 0.47%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 8, 0.42%
Ireland
8 publications, 0.42%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 8, 0.42%
Netherlands
8 publications, 0.42%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 7, 0.37%
New Zealand
7 publications, 0.37%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 7, 0.37%
Chile
7 publications, 0.37%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 6, 0.32%
Mexico
6 publications, 0.32%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 6, 0.32%
Switzerland
6 publications, 0.32%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 5, 0.26%
Belgium
5 publications, 0.26%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 5, 0.26%
Spain
5 publications, 0.26%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 5, 0.26%
Slovenia
5 publications, 0.26%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 4, 0.21%
Iraq
4 publications, 0.21%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 4, 0.21%
Norway
4 publications, 0.21%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 3, 0.16%
Russia
3 publications, 0.16%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 3, 0.16%
Greece
3 publications, 0.16%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 3, 0.16%
Nigeria
3 publications, 0.16%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 2, 0.11%
Austria
2 publications, 0.11%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 2, 0.11%
South Africa
2 publications, 0.11%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 1, 0.05%
Portugal
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Barbados
|
Barbados, 1, 0.05%
Barbados
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 1, 0.05%
Hungary
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Venezuela
|
Venezuela, 1, 0.05%
Venezuela
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 1, 0.05%
Vietnam
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 1, 0.05%
Indonesia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 1, 0.05%
Kenya
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 1, 0.05%
Cyprus
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 1, 0.05%
Colombia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 1, 0.05%
Lebanon
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Namibia
|
Namibia, 1, 0.05%
Namibia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 1, 0.05%
Saudi Arabia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Senegal
|
Senegal, 1, 0.05%
Senegal
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 1, 0.05%
Uganda
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 1, 0.05%
Philippines
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 1, 0.05%
Croatia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Montenegro
|
Montenegro, 1, 0.05%
Montenegro
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 1, 0.05%
Ethiopia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Show all (22 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
|