English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

American Mineralogist: Journal of Earth and Planetary Materials received more citations than any other journal in mineralogy, petrology, and crystallography (Table 1), according to the Thompson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports of 2015 (for citations in 2014). We expect the journal to retain that mantle in the soon-to-be-released 2016 report. The current Journal Impact Factor—a lagging indicator to be sure—still hovers near 2, but JIF is only one indicator of journal influence. Together the JIF and total citation numbers show that we publish a lot of papers, many of which are very well cited, some of which are not—but overall, the journal garners considerable attention, and our articles have staying power. However, while we take no displeasure at the total citations ranking, and will conclude this Editorial by using these rankings to stoke support for society-published journals, the means by which scientific quality and influence are ranked requires critical review. Some well-worn indices that supposedly measure scientific influence or accomplishment are misunderstood. And we should take care not to confuse “citations” with “success”; the two may be related, but are not synonymous.Total citations (Table 1) are probably not a completely unfair measure of journal influence; in the JCR report, they represent (by all appearances) the sum of all citations that accrue to a journal in a given year, to articles published in any year. Total citations thus take a longer view than the JIF, which represents mean citations per article, calculated over a 2-year period (so the 2015 JIF report averages citations per article in 2014, for articles published in 2013 and 2012). The disparity in the total citations and JIF rankings belies the commonly held view that if papers are not cited quickly, they are never cited. Unlike the JIF, though, yearly rankings for total citations are not freely obtained …

The most-cited journal in mineralogy and petrology (and what scientists can learn from baseball)