Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q1
WOS
Q3
Impact factor
1
SJR
0.500
CiteScore
2.2
Categories
Law
Sociology and Political Science
Areas
Social Sciences
Years of issue
1999-2025
journal names
The Journal of Adult Protection
J ADULT PROT
Top-3 citing journals

The Journal of Adult Protection
(1007 citations)

British Journal of Social Work
(131 citations)

Journal of Social Work
(90 citations)
Top-3 organizations

King's College London
(31 publications)

University of Hull
(18 publications)

Bournemouth University
(14 publications)

Bournemouth University
(5 publications)

University of East Anglia
(4 publications)

Royal Holloway University of London
(3 publications)
Top-3 countries
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 287
Q1

Exploring Conditions for Designing Citizen Observatories in Sri Lanka: The Case of Air Quality in Rural Areas
Rathnayake C., Joshi S., Cerratto-Pargman T.
Q1
Citizen Science Theory and Practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
Q1

Does Terminology Matter? Effects of the Citizen Science Label on Participation in a Wildlife Conservation Online Platform
McLeod P., Schuldt J., Song H., Crain R., Dickinson J.
Despite concerns that sociocultural connotations of the term citizen science may discourage engagement with such projects among certain groups, little empirical evidence is available about the behavioral effects of this terminology. One specific area of concern is the persistent gender gap in citizen science participation. A two-week field experiment (N = 699) with users of an online platform framed as either a citizen science or an environmental stewardship project examined framing and gender effects on engagement, sense of community (SoC), and indicators of pro-environmental interest. Results revealed no direct effects of the frame. Rather, framing interacted with participants’ perceptions of the extent to which the project was about citizen science or environmental stewardship. Perceiving the project as environmental stewardship predicted higher engagement and environmental interest among women than among men, and greater SoC only among men assigned to the environmental stewardship frame. A key implication is that the congruence between a project’s label and people’s experiences in the project may be more important than how the project is labeled.
Q1

Fishing on Facebook: Using Social Media and Citizen Science to Crowd-Source Trophy Murray Cod
O’Connell M., Spennemann D., Bond J., Kopf R.K., McCasker N., Humphries P.
Shifting baselines, whereby people’s perceptions of what was the “natural” state of the environment changes with each generation, hinders conservation, restoration, and management. Formal and informal historical animal records can be used to inform past biological, ecological, and environmental patterns and processes. Trophy specimens are cultural and social objects but also are examples of informal historical records that may supply biological tissue and supplement formal natural history collections. The use of social media to gather information from citizen scientists has great potential for data collection of such specimens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential utility of Facebook and traditional media to collect data on taxidermal Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii), a large, long-lived freshwater fish endemic to the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. A Facebook group, “Cod Spot,” was established as the location for information dissemination to potential citizen scientists, and where data on Murray cod mounts could be uploaded. This was complemented with social and mainstream media promotion, a research website, and an e-survey. Cod Spot received >7,000 interactions and approximately 400 participants. A total of 189 verified locations of Murray cod head and whole mounts were found. The e-survey provided verification of the potential to turn these cultural and social objects into ones with scientific value. Participants included interested persons, collectors, taxidermists, stewards, or owners of mounts. Most participants were males aged 35+, although women comprised almost a third of website users. This research has shown that low-cost marketing, combined with a widely dispersed, relatively common and well-known object of interest, can be effective at gaining participation in citizen science collaborations.
Q1

Creative-Motivated Citizen Science After-School STEAM Programme for Motivating Actions Related to the Oceanic Microplastics Problem
Sayuda T., Kinoshita H., Kato F., Pennington M.
Citizen science (CS) projects focused on microplastics (MP), small plastics that cause widespread ocean pollution, have gained interest from international research communities. However, research is lacking on designing citizen science educational programmes that promote microplastic problem-solving and enhance local understanding. These programmes could use STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math) education and creative activities for children, supported by local adults such as parents and teachers. We, therefore, created a nine-week STEAM education CS after-school programme for primary school children. In addition to MP sampling, we have also incorporated elements of STEAM education, combining creative projects and motivational activities, in this creative-motivated after-school programme. Our goals are to encourage long-term community cooperation in research, learning about MP issues, and thinking about local solutions through this community participatory CS programme. As a result, our qualitative results showed that five primary school children and five community adults were actively involved in the programme. Three creative project outputs were produced, and four MP data sampling sessions were conducted. Three pairs of children and their mother participants remained engaged in this ongoing problem-solving activity 10 months after its conclusion. During our programme progression, we observed familial engagement between local children and parents, which has not commonly been studied in the context of CS programmes. We believe that designing action-motivating long-term programmes to raise participants’ awareness of issues and interest in research is important. This CS programme has the potential to encourage long-term community interaction with research and enhance community involvement in environmental issues.
Q1

The Feasibility and Acceptability of a Community Science Approach to Explore Infant Formula Preparation Safety in the Home
Jones S., Cooper J., Dolling A., McNamara T., Dvorak S., Sibson V., Brown A., Yhnell E., Buchanan P., Breward S., Ellis R., Grant A.
Q1
Citizen Science Theory and Practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
Q1

FreshWater Watch: Investigating the Health of Freshwater Ecosystems, from the Bottom Up
Bishop I., Boldrini A., Clymans W., Hall C., Moorhouse H., Parkinson S., Scott-Somme K., Thornhill I., Loiselle S.
Freshwater ecosystems are increasingly facing major global and local stressors, while monitoring surface water status by regulatory agencies is often limited by financial and political constraints. Citizen science–based approaches with robust quality control and training can support regulatory monitoring and decision-making. Herein, we outline the criteria used to develop a citizen science monitoring program for water quality, based on a standardized methodology designed to support the Agenda 2030 indicator 6.3.2 and the EU’s Water Framework Directive. We explore the evolution of protocols used to ensure data robustness and transferability and examine the utility of contextual information registered by citizen scientists. We present laboratory and field experiments conducted to validate chemical and optical methods. Using the data from more than 80 projects across 4 biogeographical regions, we explore consistencies and differences in seasonal and spatial trends in macronutrient concentrations between regions. Our results indicate that nitrate and phosphate concentrations tend to increase in areas with agricultural intensification and industrial land use. Seasonally, nitrate concentrations reach a maximum in spring and autumn in temperate regions, while phosphate levels are highest in summer and autumn, reaching a minimum in winter. We also found that observations of algal blooms coincided with periods of lower nitrate concentrations. Importantly, data of ecological, chemical, and optical conditions recorded by citizen scientists are being used by local and regional stakeholders in managing freshwater ecosystems. This study reveals the potential for scaling citizen science–based monitoring programs to contribute towards a global assessment of water quality.
Q1

An Emerging Theory of School-Based Participatory Science
Smith P.S., Goforth C.L., Carrier S.J., Hayes M.L., Safley S.E.
Q1
Citizen Science Theory and Practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 1
,

Open Access
Q1

Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Citizen Science
Fortson L., Crowston K., Kloetzer L., Ponti M.
N/A
Q1

Understanding Confusion: A Case Study of Training a Machine Model to Predict and Interpret Consensus From Volunteer Labels
Sankar R., Mantha K., Nesmith C., Fortson L., Brueshaber S., Hansen-Koharcheck C., Orton G.
Citizen science has become a valuable and reliable method for interpreting and processing big datasets, and is vital in the era of ever-growing data volumes. However, there are inherent difficulties in the generating labels from citizen scientists, due to the inherent variability between the members of the crowd, leading to variability in the results. Sometimes, this is useful — such as with serendipitous discoveries, which corresponds to rare/unknown classes in the data — but it might also be due to ambiguity between classes. The primary issue is then to distinguish between the intrinsic variability in the dataset and the uncertainty in the citizen scientists’ responses, and leveraging that to extract scientifically useful relationships. In this paper, we explore using a neural network to interpret volunteer confusion across the dataset, to increase the purity of the downstream analysis. We focus on the use of learned features from the network to disentangle feature similarity across the classes, and the ability of the machines’ “attention” in identifying features that lead to confusion. We use data from Jovian Vortex Hunter, a citizen science project to study vortices in Jupiter’s atmosphere, and find that the latent space from the model helps effectively identify different sources of image-level features that lead to low volunteer consensus. Furthermore, the machine’s attention highlights features corresponding to specific classes. This provides meaningful image-level feature-class relationships, which is useful in our analysis for identifying vortex-specific features to better understand vortex evolution mechanisms. Finally, we discuss the applicability of this method to other citizen science projects.
Q1

From Voxels to Viruses: Using Deep Learning and Crowdsourcing to Understand a Virus Factory
Pennington A., King O.N., Tun W.M., Boyce M., Sutton G., Stuart D.I., Basham M., Darrow M.C.
Many bioimaging research projects require objects of interest to be identified, located, and then traced to allow quantitative measurement. Depending on the complexity of the system and imaging, instance segmentation is often done manually, and automated approaches still require weeks to months of an individual’s time to acquire the necessary training data for AI models. As such, there is a strong need to develop approaches for instance segmentation that minimize the use of expert annotation while maintaining quality on challenging image analysis problems.
Herein, we present our work on a citizen science project we ran called Science Scribbler: Virus Factory on the Zooniverse platform, in which citizen scientists annotated a cryo-electron tomography volume by locating and categorising viruses using point-based annotations instead of manually drawing outlines. One crowdsourcing workflow produced a database of virus locations, and the other workflow produced a set of classifications of those locations. Together, this allowed mask annotation to be generated for training a deep learning–based segmentation model. From this model, segmentations were produced that allowed for measurements such as counts of the viruses by virus class.
The application of citizen science–driven crowdsourcing to the generation of instance segmentations of volumetric bioimages is a step towards developing annotation-efficient segmentation workflows for bioimaging data. This approach aligns with the growing interest in citizen science initiatives that combine the collective intelligence of volunteers with AI to tackle complex problems while involving the public with research that is being undertaken in these important areas of science.
Q1

Through the Citizen Scientists’ Eyes: Insights into Using Citizen Science with Machine Learning for Effective Identification of Unknown-Unknowns in Big Data
Mantha K.B., Roberts H., Fortson L., Lintott C., Dickinson H., Keel W., Sankar R., Krawczyk C., Simmons B., Walmsley M., Garland I., Makechemu J.S., Trouille L., Johnson C.
In the era of rapidly growing astronomical data, the gap between data collection and analysis is a significant barrier, especially for teams searching for rare scientific objects. Although machine learning (ML) can quickly parse large data sets, it struggles to robustly identify scientifically interesting objects, a task at which humans excel. Human-in-the-loop (HITL) strategies that combine the strengths of citizen science (CS) and ML offer a promising solution, but first, we need to better understand the relationship between human- and machine-identified samples. In this work, we present a case study from the Galaxy Zoo: Weird & Wonderful project, where volunteers inspected ~200,000 astronomical images—processed by an ML-based anomaly detection model—to identify those with unusual or interesting characteristics. Volunteer-selected images with common astrophysical characteristics had higher consensus, while rarer or more complex ones had lower consensus. This suggests low-consensus choices shouldn’t be dismissed in further explorations. Additionally, volunteers were better at filtering out uninteresting anomalies, such as image artifacts, which the machine struggled with. We also found that a higher ML-generated anomaly score that indicates images’ low-level feature anomalousness was a better predictor of the volunteers’ consensus choice. Combining a locus of high volunteer-consensus images within the ML learnt feature space and anomaly score, we demonstrated a decision boundary that can effectively isolate images with unusual and potentially scientifically interesting characteristics. Using this case study, we lay important guidelines for future research studies looking to adapt and operationalize human-machine collaborative frameworks for efficient anomaly detection in big data.
Q1

Supporting Human and Machine Co-Learning in Citizen Science: Lessons From Gravity Spy
Østerlund C., Crowston K., Jackson C.B., Wu Y., Smith A.O., Katsaggelos A.K.
We explore the bi-directional relationship between human and machine learning in citizen science. Theoretically, the study draws on the zone of proximal development (ZPD) concept, which allows us to describe AI augmentation of human learning, human augmentation of machine learning, and how tasks can be designed to facilitate co-learning. The study takes a design-science approach to explore the design, deployment, and evaluations of the Gravity Spy citizen science project. The findings highlight the challenges and opportunities of co-learning, where both humans and machines contribute to each other’s learning and capabilities. The study takes its point of departure in the literature on co-learning and develops a framework for designing projects where humans and machines mutually enhance each other’s learning. The research contributes to the existing literature by developing a dynamic approach to human-AI augmentation, by emphasizing that the ZPD supports ongoing learning for volunteers and keeps machine learning aligned with evolving data. The approach offers potential benefits for project scalability, participant engagement, and automation considerations while acknowledging the importance of tutorials, community access, and expert involvement in supporting learning.
Q1

Does Using Artificial Intelligence in Citizen Science Support Volunteers’ Learning? An Experimental Study in Ornithology
Pankiv K., Kloetzer L.
One of the oldest and largest biodiversity-related citizen science (CS) projects is eBird (https://ebird.org/home), developed by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. It provides a mobile application for birdwatchers to record checklists of when, where, and how they have seen or heard birds. The Cornell Lab has also developed a mobile application, Merlin, which uses a deep convolutional neural network to help users automatically identify bird species from photos, sounds (converted to spectrograms), or descriptions. This research investigates how the use of machine learning (ML) classification models affects the learning of novice birders. Our participants (computer science students with no previous background in ornithology) were randomly divided into three groups: one using the eBird application and identifying bird species themselves; one using the Merlin application, which uses ML to automatically identify birds from photos or sounds; and a control group. Participants were tested on their knowledge of birds before and after participating in the project to see how using the ML classification model affected their learning. We also interviewed selected participants after the post-test to understand what they had done and what might explain the results. Our results show that novice participants who participate in a CS project for even a short time significantly improve their content knowledge of familiar birds in their neighbourhood, and that eBird users outperform Merlin users on the knowledge post-test. Although AI may improve volunteer productivity and retention, there is a risk that it may reduce their learning. Further research with different participant profiles and project designs is needed to understand how to optimise volunteer productivity, retention, and learning in AI-assisted CS projects.
Q1

The Dual Nature of Trust in Participatory Sciences: An Investigation into Data Quality and Household Privacy Preferences
Lin Hunter D., Johnson V., Cooper C.
There is a duality of trust in participatory science (citizen science) projects in which the data produced by volunteers must be trusted by the scientific community and participants must trust the scientists who lead projects. Facilitator organizations are third-party organizations that engage their members in participatory science to enrich their members’ experience at their organization. In Crowd the Tap, we engaged participants through facilitator organizations including high schools, faith communities, universities, and a corporate volunteer program. We used Kruskal Wallis tests and chi-square tests with Bonferroni post hoc tests to assess how data quality and privacy preferences differed across facilitator groups and amongst those who participated in the project independently (unfacilitated). Faith communities provided higher data quality while students provided lower data quality. Data quality in education settings differed based on the level of investment of the project in terms of both time and money as well as student age. We also found that demographic and household characteristics seemed more important in predicting privacy preferences than facilitation. Our results suggest that project leaders can support diverse participation by extending protection of participant privacy and investing in needed resources to support facilitators. They also suggest that education-oriented facilitators may need to prioritize data quality to ensure authentic learning opportunities. Ultimately our results reveal several tradeoffs that project leaders can weigh when deciding to work with facilitators.
Q1

Citizen Science for Nature Conservation in Hungary A Three-Dimensional Approach
Soria Aguirre J.M., Váczi O., Biró M., Juhász E., Soltész Z., Barta B., Márton Z., Szép T., Halpern B., Szentirmai I., Károlyi B., Czeglédi A., Bela G., Tormáné Kovács E.
Nature conservation–related citizen science (NCCS) has grown rapidly worldwide in previous years. In Hungary, a few citizen science (CS) projects have been operating for years and some have only recently launched. Our aim herein is to assess the performance of eight Hungarian NCCS projects in three dimensions: a) science, b) nature conservation, and c) participants’ development. An evaluation framework was developed for the assessment. Our results show that the Common Bird Monitoring Program performed the best overall. This is also the oldest NCCS project in the country. When comparing the performance per dimension, the majority of the projects tended to have good performances in the science dimension. Most of the projects ensure data quality using different strategies. However, the need for open data and processing the project results for generating scientific publications still needs to be tackled by some NCCS initiatives. Regarding the nature conservation dimension, data generated have been mostly used in monitoring species/ecosystems, whereas data is less commonly used for conservation policy-making. It was identified that the participants’ development dimension has not received sufficient attention, and neither learning outcomes nor behavioral and attitude change has been evaluated by any projects. Our results of evaluating Hungarian NCCS initiatives in a complex way may offer insights for project managers and coordinators to identify which dimension are performing well and which areas need improvement. Also, our framework serves as a model that can be applied to current and future NCCS initiatives.
Top-100
Citing journals
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
|
The Journal of Adult Protection
1007 citations, 29.9%
|
|
British Journal of Social Work
131 citations, 3.89%
|
|
Journal of Social Work
90 citations, 2.67%
|
|
Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect
70 citations, 2.08%
|
|
Health and Social Care in the Community
62 citations, 1.84%
|
|
Disability and Society
56 citations, 1.66%
|
|
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
55 citations, 1.63%
|
|
European Journal of Social Work
35 citations, 1.04%
|
|
Social Work Education
35 citations, 1.04%
|
|
Working with Older People
30 citations, 0.89%
|
|
Ethics and Social Welfare
29 citations, 0.86%
|
|
PLoS ONE
29 citations, 0.86%
|
|
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
26 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Practice
23 citations, 0.68%
|
|
Trauma, Violence, and Abuse
23 citations, 0.68%
|
|
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
21 citations, 0.62%
|
|
Journal of Intellectual Disabilities
20 citations, 0.59%
|
|
Journal of Advanced Nursing
20 citations, 0.59%
|
|
BMC Health Services Research
19 citations, 0.56%
|
|
Policing (Oxford)
19 citations, 0.56%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
16 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Ageing International
16 citations, 0.48%
|
|
British Journal of Learning Disabilities
16 citations, 0.48%
|
|
British Journal of Nursing
16 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Social Policy and Society
16 citations, 0.48%
|
|
Ageing and Society
15 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Journal of Family Violence
14 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Tizard Learning Disability Review
14 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Canadian Journal on Aging
13 citations, 0.39%
|
|
International journal of older people nursing
13 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Social Policy and Administration
13 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Nursing
13 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Critical Social Policy
12 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Journal of Gerontological Social Work
12 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
12 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities
11 citations, 0.33%
|
|
British Journal of Community Nursing
11 citations, 0.33%
|
|
The Gerontologist
11 citations, 0.33%
|
|
The Police Journal Theory Practice and Principles
11 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Australian Social Work
10 citations, 0.3%
|
|
BMC Geriatrics
10 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Policing and Society
10 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Journal of Social Work Practice
10 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Nursing Ethics
9 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Issues in Mental Health Nursing
9 citations, 0.27%
|
|
BMJ Open
9 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Frontiers in Public Health
9 citations, 0.27%
|
|
International Psychogeriatrics
9 citations, 0.27%
|
|
BMC Public Health
9 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Dementia
9 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing
9 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
9 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Educational Gerontology
8 citations, 0.24%
|
|
International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
8 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychiatry
8 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Violence Against Women
8 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Health Expectations
8 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
7 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities
7 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Health, Risk and Society
7 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Research in Developmental Disabilities
7 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Applied Gerontology
7 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Integrated Care
7 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Cambridge Prisms Global Mental Health
7 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Sexuality and Disability
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Campbell Systematic Reviews
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Australasian Journal on Ageing
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Child Abuse and Neglect
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Child Abuse Review
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Children and Youth Services Review
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Aggression and Violent Behavior
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Disability and Rehabilitation
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Sociology of Health and Illness
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Aging and Social Policy
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
BMC Psychiatry
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Social Work and Social Sciences Review
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Revista Espanola de Geriatria y Gerontologia
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Mental Health
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Critical Criminology
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Nurse Education Today
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Geriatric Nursing
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
International Journal of Developmental Disabilities
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
International Review of Victimology
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Nordic Social Work Research
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Public Policy & Aging Report
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Financial Crime
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Violence and Victims
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987)
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Brain Injury
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
International Journal of Social Welfare
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Family Journal
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Policing
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
BMC Medical Education
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Social Policy
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
Citing publishers
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
|
Emerald
1117 citations, 33.17%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
460 citations, 13.66%
|
|
Wiley
326 citations, 9.68%
|
|
SAGE
298 citations, 8.85%
|
|
Springer Nature
185 citations, 5.49%
|
|
Oxford University Press
181 citations, 5.37%
|
|
Elsevier
123 citations, 3.65%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
76 citations, 2.26%
|
|
Mark Allen Group
42 citations, 1.25%
|
|
MDPI
31 citations, 0.92%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
31 citations, 0.92%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
26 citations, 0.77%
|
|
BMJ
17 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
14 citations, 0.42%
|
|
RCNi
13 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Bristol University Press
11 citations, 0.33%
|
|
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Scandinavian University Press / Universitetsforlaget AS
6 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Whiting & Birch Ltd.
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Royal College of Psychiatrists
5 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Springer Publishing Company
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
SciELO
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
IGI Global
4 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
3 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Stockholm University Press
3 citations, 0.09%
|
|
IOS Press
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Fondation Nationale de Gerontologie
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS)
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
JMIR Publications
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Virtus Interpress
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
OpenEdition
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
IntechOpen
2 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
EDP Sciences
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Universiti Putra Malaysia
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
American Speech Language Hearing Association
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Linkoping University Electronic Press
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
IOP Publishing
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
American Medical Association (AMA)
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
University of Nebraska Press
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Borsa Istanbul Anonim Sirketi
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Unisa Press
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Royal College of General Practitioners
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Kemerovo State University
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Wilfrid Laurier University Press
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
National Library of Serbia
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co, KG
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
AOSIS
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
SLACK
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
The Japanese Association of Rural Medicine
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
1 citation, 0.03%
|
|
Show all (38 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
Publishing organizations
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
|
|
King's College London
31 publications, 4.43%
|
|
University of Hull
18 publications, 2.57%
|
|
Bournemouth University
14 publications, 2%
|
|
Keele University
12 publications, 1.71%
|
|
University of Nottingham
11 publications, 1.57%
|
|
University of Salford
11 publications, 1.57%
|
|
University of East Anglia
10 publications, 1.43%
|
|
University of Stirling
10 publications, 1.43%
|
|
University of Sheffield
8 publications, 1.14%
|
|
University of Plymouth
7 publications, 1%
|
|
De Montfort University
6 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Sussex
6 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Manchester Metropolitan University
5 publications, 0.71%
|
|
University of Birmingham
4 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Sheffield Hallam University
4 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Brunel University London
3 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Royal Holloway University of London
3 publications, 0.43%
|
|
University of Manchester
3 publications, 0.43%
|
|
University of Queensland
3 publications, 0.43%
|
|
University of St Andrews
3 publications, 0.43%
|
|
University of Leeds
3 publications, 0.43%
|
|
University College Dublin
3 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Saratov State University
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Liverpool John Moores University
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
University of Oslo
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
City, University of London
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Nottingham Trent University
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Griffith University
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
State University of Padang
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
University of Hong Kong
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Queen's University Belfast
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
University of the West of England
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Northumbria University
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
University of Porto
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
University of York
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
University of Ulster
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Cardiff and Vale University Health Board
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
University of Bradford
2 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Lahore
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Symbiosis International University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Arak University of Medical Sciences
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Amity University, Noida
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Frederick University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Sichuan University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Haifa
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Helsinki
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Mid Sweden University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Hashemite University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Sun Yat-sen University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Eastern Finland
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University College London
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Dundee
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Warwick
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Cambridge
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Liverpool
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
St George's, University of London
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Edinburgh Napier University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Southern California
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Nicosia
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Glasgow
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Lincoln University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Johannesburg
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
George Washington University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Makerere University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Northwestern University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Brigham and Women's Hospital
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Aberystwyth University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Rush University Medical Center
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Northeastern University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Federal University of São Carlos
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Trinity College Dublin
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Bristol
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Macau
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Lancaster University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Université de Sherbrooke
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Dartmouth College
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Cardiff Metropolitan University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Leeds Beckett University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Vienna
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Maryland, Baltimore
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Anglia Ruskin University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Toronto
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Calgary
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Granada
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Indiana University Indianapolis
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Bahir Dar University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
National Health Service Lothian
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Essex
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
University of Portsmouth
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Coventry University
1 publication, 0.14%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
1
2
3
4
5
|
|
Bournemouth University
5 publications, 3.65%
|
|
University of East Anglia
4 publications, 2.92%
|
|
Royal Holloway University of London
3 publications, 2.19%
|
|
State University of Padang
2 publications, 1.46%
|
|
Keele University
2 publications, 1.46%
|
|
University of Stirling
2 publications, 1.46%
|
|
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Lahore
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Arak University of Medical Sciences
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Amity University, Noida
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Sichuan University
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Hashemite University
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Brunel University London
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Liverpool
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Edinburgh Napier University
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Southern California
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Johannesburg
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Makerere University
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Aberystwyth University
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Federal University of São Carlos
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Queen's University Belfast
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Trinity College Dublin
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Université de Sherbrooke
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Dartmouth College
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Maryland, Baltimore
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Porto
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Sheffield Hallam University
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Toronto
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Sussex
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University College Dublin
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Essex
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Plymouth
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Hull
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
University of Salford
1 publication, 0.73%
|
|
Show all (7 more) | |
1
2
3
4
5
|
Publishing countries
50
100
150
200
250
300
|
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 256, 36.57%
United Kingdom
256 publications, 36.57%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 31, 4.43%
Italy
31 publications, 4.43%
|
USA
|
USA, 28, 4%
USA
28 publications, 4%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 8, 1.14%
Canada
8 publications, 1.14%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 7, 1%
Ireland
7 publications, 1%
|
China
|
China, 5, 0.71%
China
5 publications, 0.71%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 5, 0.71%
Portugal
5 publications, 0.71%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 5, 0.71%
Australia
5 publications, 0.71%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 4, 0.57%
Germany
4 publications, 0.57%
|
India
|
India, 4, 0.57%
India
4 publications, 0.57%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 3, 0.43%
Russia
3 publications, 0.43%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 3, 0.43%
Austria
3 publications, 0.43%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 3, 0.43%
Norway
3 publications, 0.43%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 2, 0.29%
Indonesia
2 publications, 0.29%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 2, 0.29%
Spain
2 publications, 0.29%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 2, 0.29%
Finland
2 publications, 0.29%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 2, 0.29%
Switzerland
2 publications, 0.29%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 1, 0.14%
Bangladesh
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 1, 0.14%
Belgium
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1, 0.14%
Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 1, 0.14%
Brazil
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 1, 0.14%
Greece
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 1, 0.14%
Israel
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 1, 0.14%
Jordan
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 1, 0.14%
Iran
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 1, 0.14%
Cyprus
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 1, 0.14%
Lithuania
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 1, 0.14%
Netherlands
1 publication, 0.14%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 1, 0.14%
New Zealand
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 1, 0.14%
Pakistan
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Palestine
|
Palestine, 1, 0.14%
Palestine
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 1, 0.14%
Turkey
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 1, 0.14%
Uganda
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 1, 0.14%
Sweden
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 1, 0.14%
Ethiopia
1 publication, 0.14%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 1, 0.14%
South Africa
1 publication, 0.14%
|
Show all (6 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
|
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 33, 24.09%
United Kingdom
33 publications, 24.09%
|
USA
|
USA, 2, 1.46%
USA
2 publications, 1.46%
|
China
|
China, 2, 1.46%
China
2 publications, 1.46%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 2, 1.46%
Portugal
2 publications, 1.46%
|
India
|
India, 2, 1.46%
India
2 publications, 1.46%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 2, 1.46%
Indonesia
2 publications, 1.46%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 2, 1.46%
Ireland
2 publications, 1.46%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 2, 1.46%
Canada
2 publications, 1.46%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 1, 0.73%
Bangladesh
1 publication, 0.73%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 1, 0.73%
Brazil
1 publication, 0.73%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 1, 0.73%
Jordan
1 publication, 0.73%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 1, 0.73%
Iran
1 publication, 0.73%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 1, 0.73%
Italy
1 publication, 0.73%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 1, 0.73%
Pakistan
1 publication, 0.73%
|
Palestine
|
Palestine, 1, 0.73%
Palestine
1 publication, 0.73%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 1, 0.73%
Uganda
1 publication, 0.73%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 1, 0.73%
South Africa
1 publication, 0.73%
|
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
|
1 profile journal article
Wen-Jung Chang
4 publications,
56 citations
h-index: 2