1,720,968 research outputs found
Comparative geometric morphometrics of male genitalia in Xiphocentron subgenera (Trichoptera: Xiphocentronidae): new species, revision and phylogenetic systematics of the subgenus Sphagocentron
No full textNew species of the long horned caddisfly Oecetis McLachlan, 1877 (Trichoptera: Leptoceridae) from Atlantic forest, Brazil and their evolutionary relationship
No full textPhylogeny indicates polyphyly in Cnodocentron (Trichoptera: Xiphocentronidae): biogeography and revision of New World species (Caenocentron)
No full textPhylogeny indicates polyphyly in Cnodocentron (Trichoptera: Xiphocentronidae): biogeography and revision of New World species (Caenocentron)
No full textFirst phylogeny of the shredder caddisfly genus Phylloicus Müller, 1880 (Trichoptera: Calamoceratidae)
No full textThe genus Neotrichia Morton, 1905 in Mexico (Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae): two new species, their phylogenetic relationship and new distributional records
No full textPhylogeny indicates polyphyly in Cnodocentron (Trichoptera: Xiphocentronidae): biogeography and revision of New World species (Caenocentron)
No full textThe genus Neotrichia Morton, 1905 in Mexico (Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae): two new species, their phylogenetic relationship and new distributional records
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
