RETRACTED: Contemporary dance and the problem of evaluation: A consensual approach in the Chinese case
Thinking Skills and Creativity, ISSN: 1871-1871, Vol: 43, Page: 100992
2022
- 26Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures26
- Readers26
- 26
Article Description
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal ( https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal ). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors-in-Chief. After a thorough investigation, the Editors have concluded that the acceptance of this article was partly based upon the positive advice of one illegitimate reviewer report. The report was submitted from an email account which was provided to the journal as a suggested reviewer during the submission of the article. Although purportedly a real reviewer account, the Editors have concluded that this was not of an appropriate, independent reviewer. This manipulation of the peer-review process represents a clear violation of the fundamentals of peer review, our publishing policies, and publishing ethics standards. Apologies are offered to the reviewer whose identity was assumed and to the readers of the journal that this deception was not detected during the submission process.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187121002078; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100992; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85120325054&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1871187121002078; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100992
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know