2018
DOI: 10.1177/0002764218766581
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Intellectual Structure of theAmerican Behavioral Scientist: Five Decades of Research

Abstract: Over the past 50 years, the American Behavioral Scientist has become one of the most representative journals within the social and behavioral sciences field. The journal has disseminated large amounts of knowledge, which has increased the complexity of having a global picture of its contributions. The aim of this research is to identify and visualize the intellectual structure of this journal in order to appreciate the changes that have taken place over the five decades since its establishment. Following a bib… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 47 publications
(57 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Co-citations analysis is able to identify the intellectual structure of a research field and answering matters about the field such as: which are the main research areas, the most active ones, the emerging trends; or the dissemination paths of the knowledge of the domain. This methodology shows two big advantages against others: (1) capability to analyse large amounts of work, (2) and avoiding general problems of subjectivity bias derived from the idiosyncrasies of the reviewers [20].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Co-citations analysis is able to identify the intellectual structure of a research field and answering matters about the field such as: which are the main research areas, the most active ones, the emerging trends; or the dissemination paths of the knowledge of the domain. This methodology shows two big advantages against others: (1) capability to analyse large amounts of work, (2) and avoiding general problems of subjectivity bias derived from the idiosyncrasies of the reviewers [20].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%