New Directions for Evaluation

Top Research Topics at New Directions for Evaluation?

Program evaluation, Evaluation methods, Public relations, Public administration and Pedagogy are the subjects of interest in New Directions for Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation explores issues in Program evaluation which can be linked to other research areas like Social psychology, Engineering ethics, Accountability and Process management. The journal aims to form a more comprehensive understanding of the field by integrating Evaluation methods with subjects such as Research methodology, Management science, Process (engineering) and Research evaluation.

The research on Public relations discussed in the journal draws on the closely related field of Context (language use). The journal focuses on Public administration as well as the interrelated topic of Public policy.

• Program evaluation (23.56%)
• Evaluation methods (19.14%)
• Public relations (14.49%)

What are the most cited papers published in the journal?

• Advances in mixed-method evaluation : the challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (620 citations)
• Framing participatory evaluation (438 citations)
• Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed‐method evaluation (365 citations)

Research areas of the most cited articles at New Directions for Evaluation:

The journal articles explore disciplines such as Program evaluation, Evaluation methods, Public relations, Management science and Social psychology. While the most cited publications mainly focused on Program evaluation studies, they also tackled the scientific discipline of interrelated fields such as

• Accountability which intersects with area such as Environmental resource management,
• Participatory evaluation most often made with reference to Engineering ethics.. The most cited articles explore issues in Social psychology which can be linked to other research areas like Epistemology, Credibility, Causality, Research methodology and Process (engineering).

What topics the last edition of the journal is best known for?

• Law
• Social science
• Management

The previous edition focused in particular on these issues:

The foci of the journal are Engineering ethics, Advocacy evaluation, Capacity building, Computer network and Protocol (object-oriented programming). The study of Engineering ethics encompasses disciplines such as Field (Bourdieu), as well as fields such as Policy advocacy, all of which overlap with one another. It encompasses Advocacy evaluation studies in the context of Public administration as a whole.

It facilitates discussions on Public administration that incorporate concepts from other fields like Context (language use), Arc (geometry) and Politics. In it, Value proposition and Knowledge management are investigated in conjunction with one another to address concerns in Capacity building research. The research on Key (cryptography) featured in New Directions for Evaluation combines topics in other fields like Foundation (evidence), Reductionism and Process management.

The most cited articles from the last journal are:

• The Systems Evaluation Protocol for evaluation planning (1 citations)
• Applying the Systems Evaluation Protocol in the real world: Six case studies (1 citations)
• Evaluating power building: Concepts and considerations for advocacy evaluators (0 citations)

Papers citation over time

A key indicator for each journal is its effectiveness in reaching other researchers with the papers published at that venue.

The chart below presents the interquartile range (first quartile 25%, median 50% and third quartile 75%) of the number of citations of articles over time.

Top authors and change over time

The top authors publishing in New Directions for Evaluation (based on the number of publications) are:

• Jean A. King (18 papers) absent at the last edition,
• Michael Quinn Patton (17 papers) published 1 paper at the last edition,
• Gary T. Henry (16 papers) absent at the last edition,
• George Julnes (15 papers) absent at the last edition,
• Christina A. Christie (14 papers) absent at the last edition.

The overall trend for top authors publishing in this journal is outlined below. The chart shows the number of publications at each edition of the journal for top authors.

Top affiliations and change over time

Only papers with recognized affiliations are considered

The top affiliations publishing in New Directions for Evaluation (based on the number of publications) are:

• University of Minnesota (45 papers) published 1 paper at the last edition, 3 less than at the previous edition,
• Claremont Graduate University (28 papers) absent at the last edition,
• University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign (25 papers) absent at the last edition,
• University of California, Los Angeles (20 papers) absent at the last edition,
• Cornell University (20 papers) published 7 papers at the last edition.

The overall trend for top affiliations publishing in this journal is outlined below. The chart shows the number of publications at each edition of the journal for top affiliations.

Publication chance based on affiliation

The publication chance index shows the ratio of articles published by the best research institutions in the journal edition to all articles published within that journal. The best research institutions were selected based on the largest number of articles published during all editions of the journal.

The chart below presents the percentage ratio of articles from top institutions (based on their ranking of total papers).Top affiliations were grouped by their rank into the following tiers: top 1-10, top 11-20, top 21-50, and top 51+. Only articles with a recognized affiliation are considered.

During the most recent 2021 edition, 36.67% of publications had an unrecognized affiliation. Out of the publications with recognized affiliations, 47.37% were posted by at least one author from the top 10 institutions publishing in the journal. Another 0.00% included authors affiliated with research institutions from the top 11-20 affiliations. Institutions from the 21-50 range included 15.79% of all publications and 36.84% were from other institutions.

Returning Authors Index

A very common phenomenon observed among researchers publishing scientific articles is the intentional selection of journals they have already attended in the past. In particular, it is worth analyzing the case when the authors participate in the same journal from year to year.

The Returning Authors Index presented below illustrates the ratio of authors who participated in both a given as well as the previous edition of the journal in relation to all participants in a given year.

Returning Institution Index

The graph below shows the Returning Institution Index, illustrating the ratio of institutions that participated in both a given and the previous edition of the conference in relation to all affiliations present in a given year.

The experience to innovation index

Our experience to innovation index was created to show a cross-section of the experience level of authors publishing in a journal. The index includes the authors publishing at the last edition of a journal, grouped by total number of publications throughout their academic career (P) and the total number of citations of these publications ever received (C).

The group intervals were selected empirically to best show the diversity of the authors' experiences, their labels were selected as a convenience, not as judgment. The authors were divided into the following groups:

• Novice - P < 5 or C < 25 (the number of publications less than 5 or the number of citations less than 25),
• Competent - P < 10 or C < 100 (the number of publications less than 10 or the number of citations less than 100),
• Experienced - P < 25 or C < 625 (the number of publications less than 25 or the number of citations less than 625),
• Master - P < 50 or C < 2500 (the number of publications less than 50 or the number of citations less than 2500),
• Star - P ≥ 50 and C ≥ 2500 (both the number of publications greater than 50 and the number of citations greater than 2500).

The chart below illustrates experience levels of first authors in cases of publications with multiple authors.

Becoming a Licensed Counselor

While advancing in research areas and contributing to scientific publications, many professionals in these fields may seek to become licensed counselors. This certification can open up new opportunities for an individual's career growth and enable them to apply their knowledge and expertise in a practical context. In Ohio, the process of obtaining a counseling license involves fulfilling specific educational and experience requirements. Individuals must first complete a relevant master’s or doctoral degree, followed by a period of supervised professional practice. The completion of the National Counselor Examination (NCE) or the National Clinical Mental Health Counseling Examination (NCMHCE) is also vital for becoming a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) in Ohio. An essential step for aspiring counselors is to be well-prepared and well-informed about the process. Understanding how to successfully transition from the realm of educational research to a professional counseling environment is key. For more detailed information, you can follow this link to find a comprehensive guide on Getting counseling license in Ohio, which provides a step-by-step process on becoming a licensed professional counselor. By achieving this qualification, you can imbibe the wealth of knowledge gained through research into your counseling practice, ultimately fostering a more profound impact on individual and community well-being.