Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
journal names
The Journal of Socio-Economics
Top-3 citing journals

SSRN Electronic Journal
(1758 citations)

The Journal of Socio-Economics
(763 citations)

Social Indicators Research
(393 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
(16 publications)

San Diego State University
(16 publications)

University of Gothenburg
(15 publications)
Top-3 countries
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 257
Q1

SinSO: An ontology of sustainability in software
Restrepo L., Pardo C., Aguilar J., Toro M., Suescún E.
Sustainability in systems refers to applying sustainable principles and practices to create more resilient, efficient, and equitable systems that promote the well-being of people and the planet. Sustainability is an essential topic in contemporary software engineering, and its relationship with the characteristics and properties of a system or product called quality attributes is still an open question since each researcher has established their definition of sustainability in software. This has created diverse terms and concepts for distinct application environments and scopes, creating ambiguity and misconceptions. This work defines a domain ontology of Sustainability in Software named SinSO to address these issues. SinSO was implemented in OWL, using competency-based questions to validate. The findings show that this proposal satisfies several quality and content requirements. Also, using Protégé and the Hermit reasoner, we verified that SinSO is consistent since the ontology statements are coherent and do not lead to conflicting or contradictory conclusions. In addition, competency questions allowed us to demonstrate that SinSO does fulfill its purpose. FOCA methodology allowed us to evaluate SinSO quality. Also, SinSO was used in two case studies, one about software for senior-citizen smart-home, and the other, a simulator to develop and test smart-city applications, achieving positive outcomes. To verify its accuracy, completeness, and maintainability, further evaluations of SinSO are needed in real case studies. We conclude that SinSO can significantly contribute to reducing ambiguity and enhancing comprehension in this area. Furthermore, SinSO can be an effective tool for engineers to recognize the concepts and relationships in the sustainable domain to consider in the systems development life cycle to build sustainable systems.
Q1

ONTO-TDM domain ontology population for a specific discipline
Abdoune R., Lazib L., Dahmani-Bouarab F., Fernández-Breis J.
Ontologies play a vital role in organizing and constructing knowledge across various domains, enabling effective knowledge management and sharing. The development of domain-specific ontologies, such as the ONTO-TDM ontology for teaching domain modeling, is essential for providing a comprehensive and standardized representation of knowledge within a given discipline. However, to maximize the usefulness and relevance of such ontologies, it is crucial to automate their population with domain-specific information, reducing manual work and ensuring scalability. This paper presents a novel method for ontology population by extracting and integrating relevant information from diverse sources. The method combines the TextRank algorithm with Word2Vec to enhance keyword extraction, capturing both semantic meaning and textual importance. Keywords are then annotated and used to train a machine learning classifier, which aids in integrating new instances into the ontology. Experiments show that the proposed method achieves a precision of 63.33%, a recall of 61.29% and an F1-score of 62.28%, significantly improving keyword extraction and ontology population accuracy compared to existing methods. This validates the method’s effectiveness in semi-automatically extracting relevant instances from diverse data sources, enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of ontology population, and advancing automated knowledge management in domain-specific contexts.
Q1

Ontology and its applications in skills matching in job recruitment
Tuan A., Dang M., Do H., Solanki V., Torres J., Gonzalez Crespo R., Nguyen T.
In the recruitment process, manually selecting suitable candidates from curriculum vitae (CVs) for a job description (JD) is both time-consuming and expensive. Traditional keyword-based methods struggle to capture skill semantics, prompting the development of more advanced JD-CV matching systems. This paper aims to investigate and construct an ontology-based skills recommendation system, with objectives including creating a skills ontology and developing skills matching methods for JD-CV pairs. The objective of our approach is to enhance the accuracy and contextual relevance of recommendations by utilizing the proposed score. The proposed skills ontology and skills matching strategies are applied to a real dataset in Vietnam. The results of our study can automatically recommend a list of CVs for a given JD. Furthermore, the findings indicate that our proposed model surpasses comparative approaches by a margin of at least 1% to 5%. Overall, the study demonstrates the potential of utilizing ontology-based approaches to offer a practical solution for enhancing hiring practices.
Q1

How to classify domain entities into top-level ontology concepts using large language models
Lopes A., Carbonera J., Rodrigues F., Garcia L., Abel M.
Classifying domain entities into their respective top-level ontology concepts is a complex problem that typically demands manual analysis and deep expertise in the domain of interest and ontology engineering. Using an efficient approach to classify domain entities enhances data integration, interoperability, and the semantic clarity of ontologies, which are crucial for structured knowledge representation and modeling. Based on this, our main motivation is to help an ontology engineer with an automated approach to classify domain entities into top-level ontology concepts using informal definitions of these domain entities during the ontology development process. In this context, we hypothesize that the informal definitions encapsulate semantic information crucial for associating domain entities with specific top-level ontology concepts. Our approach leverages state-of-the-art language models to explore our hypothesis across multiple languages and informal definitions from different knowledge resources. In order to evaluate our proposal, we extracted multi-label datasets from the alignment of the OntoWordNet ontology and the BabelNet semantic network, covering the entire structure of the Dolce-Lite-Plus top-level ontology from most generic to most specific concepts. These datasets contain several different textual representation approaches of domain entities, including terms, example sentences, and informal definitions. Our experiments conducted 3 study cases, investigating the effectiveness of our proposal across different textual representation approaches, languages, and knowledge resources. We demonstrate that the best results are achieved using a classification pipeline with a K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) method to classify the embedding representation of informal definitions from the Mistral large language model. The findings underscore the potential of informal definitions in reflecting top-level ontology concepts and point towards developing automated tools that could significantly aid ontology engineers during the ontology development process.
Q1

Information extraction from automotive reports for ontology population
Ahaggach H., Abrouk L., Lebon E.
In this paper, we showcase our research on the use of ontologies and information extraction for the purpose of modeling damages incurred on car bodies. With the increasing use of technology in the automotive industry, it is important to have a standardized and efficient way of documenting and analyzing car damage reports. Most existing reports are unstructured, and there is a lack of standardization in describing the damage. To address this issue, we have developed a domain ontology for car damage modeling ( OCD), 1 1 industryportal.enit.fr/ontologies/OCD , 2 2 github.com/OntologyCarDamage/OCD and proposed an end-to-end system to extract information from French automotive reports. The information extraction process involves using named entity recognition (NER) and relationship extraction (RE) techniques to identify and extract relevant information from the reports. Then, the extracted information is used to populate the [Formula: see text] ontology, allowing a structured and standardized representation of the damage information. The proposed system was tested on a real dataset of automotive reports and showed promising results.
Q1

From slot mereology to a mereology of slots
Tarbouriech C., Vieu L., Barton A., Éthier J.
In 2013, Bennett proposed a mereological theory in which the parthood relation is defined on the basis of two primitive relations: a is a part of b iff a fills a slot owned by b. However, this theory has issues counting how many parts an entity has. We explore the various counting problems and propose a new theory to solve them. Keeping the core idea of Bennett’s slots, this theory introduces mereological relations between slots. This theory enables us to solve all known counting problems and to go beyond the limits of Bennett’s theory by theorising expected features of mereological theories: supplementation principles and mereological sum and fusion. The theory is illustrated on ontological issues on the nature of structural universals and informational entities.
Q1

Towards a semantic blockchain: A behaviouristic approach to modelling Ethereum
Bella G., Cantone D., Nicolosi Asmundo M., Santamaria D.F.
Decentralised ledgers are gaining momentum following the interest of industries and people in smart contracts. Major attention is paid to blockchain applications intended for trading assets that exploit digital cryptographic certificates called tokens. Particularly relevant tokens are the non-fungible tokens (NFTs), namely, unique and non-replicable tokens used to represent the cryptographic counterpart of assets ranging from pieces of art through to licenses and certifications. A relevant consequence of the hard-coded nature of blockchains is the hardness of probing, in particular when advanced searchers involving the capabilities of the smart contracts or the assets digitised by NFTs are required. For this purpose, a formal representation for the operational semantics of smart contracts and of tokens has become particularly urgent, especially in economy and finance, where blockchains become increasingly relevant. Hence, we feel the need to tailor Semantic Web technologies to achieve that semantic representation at least for NFTS. This article reports on an ontology that leverages the Ontology for Agents, Systems, and Integration of Services (“OASIS”) towards the semantic representation of smart contracts responsible for managing ERC721-compliant NFTs and running on the Ethereum blockchain. Called Ether-OASIS, the proposed ontology adopts OASIS and tailors its behaviouristic approach to the Ethereum blockchain by conceiving smart contracts as agents running on the blockchain and, consequently, smart contract interactions as agent commitments. Smart contracts are represented in terms of their actions, purposes and tokens that they manage, thus realising a blockchain that is more usable both by users and automated applications. The ontology is evaluated using standard ontological metrics and applied on a case study concerning the minting and transferring of NFTs that digitise batches of wheat.
Q1

Concept systems and frames: Detecting and managing terminological gaps between languages
Resi R.
This paper examines the concept of “terminological gaps” and strives to identify suitable methods for dealing with them during translation. The analysis begins with an investigation of the contended notion of gaps in terminology based on empirical examples drawn from a German-Italian terminological database specifically designed for translation purposes. Two macro categories of gaps are identified, conceptual and linguistic level gaps, which only partially correspond to previous observations in the literature. The paper uses examples to explore the advantages of ontological representations for detecting conceptual terminological gaps and identifying appropriate translation strategies. However, limitations are also observed and an attempt is made to resolve these using a frame-based approach. A frame-based analysis reveals that while certain designations may appear to refer to convergent conceptual units with matching distinctive features, differences also emerge due to the way the two language systems build designations. Examples from the corpus make it evident that a frame-based approach is helpful for identifying both kinds of terminological gaps, and then resolving them during translation. An important presupposition for this approach is that larger units of analysis need to be addressed rather than just terms themselves. There is confirmation of the existing idea that methods embracing entire segments or paragraphs as units of investigation are preferable during translation, and this is also seen to apply in terminological studies.
Q1

Concept systems and frames in terminology
ten Hacken P., Resi R.
Q1
Applied Ontology
,
2024
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Toward a dynamic frame-based ontology of legal terminology
Nazarov W.
In the study of special languages and translation, the legal field is often insulated from other domains. This is primarily due to the extreme system dependence of the terminology of law, which results from a lack of a common legal system of reference throughout the world. The abstract nature of this human-made field and its dynamicity in view of the continuously evolving case law and constant changes in legislation make it difficult to illustrate its complex ontology through traditional terminology management techniques. Therefore, this paper argues for an interdisciplinary approach to constructing the ontology of legal concepts based on structural constituents from frame semantics and comparative law. Frames allowing for the representation of interconnected knowledge segments evoked by legal concepts and the distinction between micro- and macro-dimensions in legal comparison research make it possible to capture the complex ontology of legal terminology evoked in a specific point in time and a determined legal context. The ontological knowledge structure will be exemplified by terms from German social, commercial, employment, and tax law.
Q1

From specialized knowledge frames to linguistically based ontologies
Faber P., León-Araúz P.
This paper explains conceptual modeling within the framework of Frame-Based Terminology (Faber, 2012; 2015; 2022), as applied to EcoLexicon (ecolexicon.ugr.es), a specialized knowledge base on the environment (León-Araúz, Reimerink &, Faber, 2019; Faber & León-Araúz, 2021). It describes how a frame-based terminological resource is currently being restructured and reengineered as an initial step towards its formalization and subsequent transformation into an ontology. It also explains how the information in EcoLexicon can be integrated in environmental ontologies such as ENVO (Buttigieg, Morrison, Smith, Mungall & Lewis, 2013; Buttigieg, Pafilis, Lewis, Schildhauer, Walls & Mungall, 2016), particularly at the bottom tiers of the Ontology Learning Layer Cake (Cimiano, 2006; Cimiano, Maedche, Staab & Volker, 2009). The assumption is that frames, as a conceptual modeling tool, and information extracted from corpora can be used to represent the conceptual structure of a specialized domain.
Q1

Terminology in the domain of seafood: A comparative analysis Germany-Spain
Jiménez Alonso I., ten Hacken P.
In the last few decades, the study of terminology has undergone a cognitive shift that has led to the development of several approaches that study the social, linguistic, and cognitive dimension of terms, such as Communicative Theory of Terminology (CTT) and Frame-Based Terminology (FBT). CTT was developed in the early 1990s and argues that the study of terminology should be based on a communicative perspective, taking into account aspects such as the communicators and the context of communication. FBT has been developed from 2007 and uses certain aspects of Frame Semantics to conceptualise specialised domains and create non-language-specific representations through the analysis of the domain event and on the study of the behaviour of the terminological units in texts. The two theories share many of the same premises and propose the representation of the concepts of a domain in an ontology. FBT also proposes a representation in frames. We explore how these two methods of domain representation can be used to represent the terminology of the domain of seafood in Germany and Spain.
Q1

Ontologies and knowledge representation in terminology: Present and future perspectives
Giacomini L.
This contribution reflects on the current role of ontologies in terminology research and practice and their future role, especially with a view to the creation of fully digital terminographic resources. The very notion of (domain) ontology, its concept and term, is discussed, highlighting metaterminological differences and substantial ambiguities arising from the interdisciplinary contact between Ontology Engineering and Terminology. Major challenges in ontology building, e.g. subjectivity, are mentioned, also with respect to the distinction between realist and non-realist ontologies and their relevance in Terminology. In addition, this contribution presents some examples of terminology resources with a distinct ontological component, showing a diversity of approaches depending on the purpose of the resource and its scope. In this context, more specific topics are addressed, such as the acquisition of ontological data and suitable formats and models for representing domain knowledge. The contribution ends with a vision of the integration of complex concept systems such as ontologies in future terminology work: here, the development of models based on terminology-specific requirements and typical users will be fundamental.
Q1

Towards building knowledge by merging multiple ontologies with CoMerger: A partitioning-based approach
Babalou S., König-Ries B.
Ontologies are the prime way of organizing data in the Semantic Web. Often, it is necessary to combine several, independently developed ontologies to obtain a complete representation of a domain of interest. The complementarity of existing ontologies can be leveraged by merging them. Existing approaches for ontology merging mostly implement a binary merge. However, with the growing number and size of relevant ontologies across domains, scalability becomes a central challenge. A multi-ontology merging technique offers a potential solution to this problem. We present Co Merger, a scalable multiple ontologies merging method. It takes as input a set of source ontologies and existing mappings across them and generates a merged ontology. For efficient processing, rather than successively merging complete ontologies pairwise, we group related concepts across ontologies into partitions and merge first within and then across those partitions. In both steps, user-specified subsets of generic merge requirements (GMRs) are taken into account and used to optimize outputs. The experimental results on well-known datasets confirm the feasibility of our approach and demonstrate its superiority over binary strategies. A prototypical implementation is freely accessible through a live web portal.
Q1

Towards a German labor market ontology: Challenges and applications
Dörpinghaus J., Binnewitt J., Winnige S., Hein K., Krüger K.
The labor market is an area with diverse data structures and multiple applications, such as matching job seekers with the right training or job. For this reason, the multilingual classification of European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) is a good example of the central role of ontologies in this area. However, ESCO cannot provide all the details of local labor market needs and does not provide links to other hierarchies of competences. For example, other taxonomies of occupations and skills are widely used in German-speaking countries, but they are not in a state where they are easily accessible for interoperability and reasoning. In this paper, we present a first version of a German Labor Market Ontology (GLMO) that uses ESCO as a top-level ontology for the target domain. This makes it highly interoperable and comparable to existing ontologies by providing details for the regional structures in German-speaking countries. In addition, we present a detailed evaluation of the provided data and applications, as well as an extensive discussion of future work.
Top-100
Citing journals
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
1758 citations, 5.91%
|
|
The Journal of Socio-Economics
763 citations, 2.56%
|
|
Social Indicators Research
393 citations, 1.32%
|
|
Sustainability
382 citations, 1.28%
|
|
Journal of Happiness Studies
292 citations, 0.98%
|
|
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics
276 citations, 0.93%
|
|
Journal of Economic Psychology
262 citations, 0.88%
|
|
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
242 citations, 0.81%
|
|
PLoS ONE
201 citations, 0.68%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
182 citations, 0.61%
|
|
International Journal of Social Economics
165 citations, 0.55%
|
|
Ecological Economics
150 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Applied Economics
140 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Journal of Business Ethics
124 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Applied Research in Quality of Life
106 citations, 0.36%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
103 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Journal of Business Research
99 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Small Business Economics
97 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Journal of Family and Economic Issues
91 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Journal of Economic Issues
77 citations, 0.26%
|
|
International Review of Economics
64 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Voluntas
64 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Social Science and Medicine
62 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Review of Economics of the Household
62 citations, 0.21%
|
|
International Journal of Manpower
60 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Cleaner Production
58 citations, 0.19%
|
|
World Development
58 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management
57 citations, 0.19%
|
|
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research
52 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Review of Social Economy
51 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Children and Youth Services Review
50 citations, 0.17%
|
|
International Journal of Hospitality Management
48 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Quality and Quantity
47 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Social Science Research
46 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
45 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
44 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
43 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Economic Surveys
43 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Personality and Individual Differences
42 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Marriage and Family
42 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Current Psychology
41 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
41 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
40 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
40 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Rural Studies
39 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Kyklos
39 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Economic Modelling
39 citations, 0.13%
|
|
BMC Public Health
39 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Development Studies
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Applied Economics Letters
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
The Forum for Social Economics
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Water (Switzerland)
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Regional Studies
37 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Economic Inquiry
37 citations, 0.12%
|
|
China Economic Review
37 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Health Economics (United Kingdom)
36 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Experimental Economics
36 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Cities
36 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance
35 citations, 0.12%
|
|
SAGE Open
34 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Economic Studies
33 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Labour Economics
33 citations, 0.11%
|
|
International Journal of Human Resource Management
33 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of the Knowledge Economy
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
International Journal of Consumer Studies
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Heliyon
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Games
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
European Economic Review
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
European Journal of Political Economy
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Journal of Environmental Management
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Economic Analysis and Policy
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Intelligence
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Energy Policy
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Acta Sociologica
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Scientific Reports
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Scientometrics
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Management Science
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Child Indicators Research
29 citations, 0.1%
|
|
International Journal of Bank Marketing
29 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
28 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Tourism Management
28 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of Economic Methodology
28 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Handbook of Research on Global Business Opportunities
28 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of Poverty
27 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Frontiers in Public Health
27 citations, 0.09%
|
|
International Small Business Journal
27 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Basic Income Studies
27 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Land Use Policy
27 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of Business Venturing
26 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Waste Management
26 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of Human Development and Capabilities
26 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Management Decision
26 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of Family Issues
26 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Research Policy
26 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
26 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Journal of European Social Policy
25 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Journal of International Development
25 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
|
Citing publishers
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
|
|
Elsevier
5723 citations, 19.22%
|
|
Springer Nature
4768 citations, 16.02%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
3319 citations, 11.15%
|
|
Wiley
2675 citations, 8.99%
|
|
Emerald
1838 citations, 6.17%
|
|
SAGE
1739 citations, 5.84%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
1726 citations, 5.8%
|
|
MDPI
904 citations, 3.04%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
870 citations, 2.92%
|
|
Oxford University Press
361 citations, 1.21%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
314 citations, 1.05%
|
|
IGI Global
299 citations, 1%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
222 citations, 0.75%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
182 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
176 citations, 0.59%
|
|
CAIRN
114 citations, 0.38%
|
|
World Scientific
94 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
69 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
63 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
62 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
53 citations, 0.18%
|
|
SciELO
52 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Hogrefe Publishing Group
51 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Annual Reviews
41 citations, 0.14%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
40 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
39 citations, 0.13%
|
|
OpenEdition
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Academy of Management
37 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
35 citations, 0.12%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
35 citations, 0.12%
|
|
IWA Publishing
33 citations, 0.11%
|
|
BMJ
33 citations, 0.11%
|
|
American Psychological Association (APA)
33 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Virtus Interpress
33 citations, 0.11%
|
|
American Economic Association
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
AOSIS
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Akademiai Kiado
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Sirey
29 citations, 0.1%
|
|
The Royal Society
27 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
27 citations, 0.09%
|
|
EDP Sciences
23 citations, 0.08%
|
|
IOP Publishing
23 citations, 0.08%
|
|
NP Voprosy Ekonomiki
21 citations, 0.07%
|
|
American Marketing Association
18 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Society for Judgment and Decision Making
18 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Scandinavian University Press / Universitetsforlaget AS
18 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
17 citations, 0.06%
|
|
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
17 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Cognizant, LLC
16 citations, 0.05%
|
|
IntechOpen
16 citations, 0.05%
|
|
IOS Press
15 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Brill
15 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
15 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Cornell University Press
15 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
14 citations, 0.05%
|
|
China Science Publishing & Media
14 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Hans Publishers
14 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Trans Tech Publications
12 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Duke University Press
12 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Accounting Association
12 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
12 citations, 0.04%
|
|
MIT Press
12 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Ubiquity Press
12 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Max-Planck Institute for Demographic Research/Max-Planck-institut fur Demografische Forschung
11 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Mackenzie Presbyterian University
11 citations, 0.04%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
University of California Press
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Escola Brasileira de Administracao Publica da Fundacao Getulio Vargas
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Kiel Institute for the World Economy
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
LLC CPC Business Perspectives
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Academic Journals
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
PERSEE Program
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Europe's Journal of Psychology
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
JMIR Publications
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
F1000 Research
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Vysoka Skola Ekonomicka
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Borsa Istanbul Anonim Sirketi
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Science Alert
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Bristol University Press
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Springer Publishing Company
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Berkeley Electronic Press
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
International Food and Agribusiness Management Association
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Public Health Association
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
The Pennsylvania State University Press
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Franco Angeli
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Duncker & Humblot GmbH
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
AIP Publishing
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Korea Distribution Science Association (KODISA)
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Masaryk University Press
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Human Kinetics
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Educational Research Association
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Index Copernicus
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administracao de Empresas de Sao Paulo
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
|
Publishing organizations
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
|
|
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
16 publications, 1.01%
|
|
San Diego State University
16 publications, 1.01%
|
|
University of Gothenburg
15 publications, 0.95%
|
|
Drexel University
14 publications, 0.88%
|
|
University of Trento
14 publications, 0.88%
|
|
University of Vienna
14 publications, 0.88%
|
|
University of Exeter
14 publications, 0.88%
|
|
Michigan State University
13 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Harvard University
13 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Mississippi State University
13 publications, 0.82%
|
|
University of Bath
12 publications, 0.76%
|
|
University of Haifa
11 publications, 0.69%
|
|
University of Turin
11 publications, 0.69%
|
|
Wayne State University
11 publications, 0.69%
|
|
University of Minnesota
11 publications, 0.69%
|
|
University of Saskatchewan
11 publications, 0.69%
|
|
University of Milano-Bicocca
10 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
10 publications, 0.63%
|
|
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
10 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Stockholm University
9 publications, 0.57%
|
|
University College London
9 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Stockholm School of Economics
8 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Cornell University
8 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Ferrara
8 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
8 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Yamaguchi University
8 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Lisbon
7 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of Calabria
7 publications, 0.44%
|
|
George Washington University
7 publications, 0.44%
|
|
George Mason University
7 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of Chicago
7 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
7 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Erasmus University Rotterdam
7 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of Florida
7 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Bar-Ilan University
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Australian National University
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Oxford
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Aarhus University
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Southern Denmark
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Bari Aldo Moro
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Eastern Piedmont Amadeo Avogadro
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Wollongong
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
City University of Hong Kong
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Illinois at Chicago
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Arizona
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of California, Santa Cruz
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Western Illinois University
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Erfurt
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Duquesne University
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Texas at El Paso
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Toronto
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Calgary
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Indiana University Bloomington
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Memphis
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Connecticut
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Nevada, Reno
6 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Zurich
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of St. Gallen
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Bologna
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Queensland University of Technology
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Sydney
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Pisa
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Rome Tor Vergata
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Catania
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
North Dakota State University
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Victoria University of Wellington
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Georgetown University
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
American University
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Auburn University
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Washington
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of California, Riverside
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Aberdeen
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Max Planck Institute for Human Development
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Lehigh University
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of East Anglia
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Kentucky
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Bradford
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Cassino and Southern Lazio
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Oklahoma
5 publications, 0.32%
|
|
American University of Sharjah
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Humboldt University of Berlin
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Naples Federico II
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Cambridge
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Yale University
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Salerno
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Siena
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Sassari
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Macquarie University
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Washington State University
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
New York University
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of California, Irvine
4 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
|
Publishing countries
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
|
|
USA
|
USA, 695, 43.79%
USA
695 publications, 43.79%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 113, 7.12%
Italy
113 publications, 7.12%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 108, 6.81%
United Kingdom
108 publications, 6.81%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 81, 5.1%
Germany
81 publications, 5.1%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 71, 4.47%
Canada
71 publications, 4.47%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 53, 3.34%
Israel
53 publications, 3.34%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 52, 3.28%
Australia
52 publications, 3.28%
|
France
|
France, 46, 2.9%
France
46 publications, 2.9%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 45, 2.84%
Japan
45 publications, 2.84%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 43, 2.71%
Sweden
43 publications, 2.71%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 27, 1.7%
Spain
27 publications, 1.7%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 25, 1.58%
Switzerland
25 publications, 1.58%
|
China
|
China, 22, 1.39%
China
22 publications, 1.39%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 22, 1.39%
Norway
22 publications, 1.39%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 20, 1.26%
Austria
20 publications, 1.26%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 19, 1.2%
Netherlands
19 publications, 1.2%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 14, 0.88%
Denmark
14 publications, 0.88%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 14, 0.88%
New Zealand
14 publications, 0.88%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 13, 0.82%
Portugal
13 publications, 0.82%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 13, 0.82%
Greece
13 publications, 0.82%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 9, 0.57%
Finland
9 publications, 0.57%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 8, 0.5%
Ireland
8 publications, 0.5%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 7, 0.44%
Turkey
7 publications, 0.44%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 6, 0.38%
Belgium
6 publications, 0.38%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 4, 0.25%
Mexico
4 publications, 0.25%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 4, 0.25%
UAE
4 publications, 0.25%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 4, 0.25%
Poland
4 publications, 0.25%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 4, 0.25%
Singapore
4 publications, 0.25%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 4, 0.25%
Thailand
4 publications, 0.25%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 3, 0.19%
Brazil
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 3, 0.19%
Hungary
3 publications, 0.19%
|
India
|
India, 3, 0.19%
India
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 3, 0.19%
Colombia
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 3, 0.19%
Malaysia
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 3, 0.19%
Czech Republic
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 3, 0.19%
Chile
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 3, 0.19%
Ethiopia
3 publications, 0.19%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 2, 0.13%
Argentina
2 publications, 0.13%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 2, 0.13%
Ghana
2 publications, 0.13%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 2, 0.13%
Egypt
2 publications, 0.13%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 2, 0.13%
Lebanon
2 publications, 0.13%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 2, 0.13%
Luxembourg
2 publications, 0.13%
|
Palestine
|
Palestine, 2, 0.13%
Palestine
2 publications, 0.13%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 2, 0.13%
Republic of Korea
2 publications, 0.13%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 2, 0.13%
Tanzania
2 publications, 0.13%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 2, 0.13%
Tunisia
2 publications, 0.13%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 2, 0.13%
South Africa
2 publications, 0.13%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 1, 0.06%
Russia
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 1, 0.06%
Kazakhstan
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 1, 0.06%
Ukraine
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 1, 0.06%
Bulgaria
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Brunei
|
Brunei, 1, 0.06%
Brunei
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 1, 0.06%
Jordan
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 1, 0.06%
Iraq
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 1, 0.06%
Cyprus
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Latvia
|
Latvia, 1, 0.06%
Latvia
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 1, 0.06%
Morocco
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 1, 0.06%
Nigeria
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Cayman Islands
|
Cayman Islands, 1, 0.06%
Cayman Islands
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 1, 0.06%
Pakistan
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Peru
|
Peru, 1, 0.06%
Peru
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 1, 0.06%
Saudi Arabia
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Syria
|
Syria, 1, 0.06%
Syria
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 1, 0.06%
Uganda
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 1, 0.06%
Uzbekistan
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 1, 0.06%
Uruguay
1 publication, 0.06%
|
Show all (36 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
|