1,721,021 research outputs found
Chapter 10. Public Libraries
Full text linkCole, Becky and Pam Ryan. (2016). Chapter 10: Public Libraries. In Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle(Eds.), Being evidence based in library and information practice. London: Facet Press
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe 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
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Barriers to Research and Evidence (Editorial)
No full textI often find attending conferences or workshops a source of reflection or inspiration for editorials, and today I attended an event that proved to be no exception. The HEALER network is a UK grouping of professionals interested in health library research. It brings together those working in health information at an academic, practitioner or strategic capacity as well as those working in higher education, research and the NHS. (http://www.libraryservices.nhs.uk/healer/minutes.html)There were a number of interesting presentations, but one (and the subsequent interactive discussions) left me with some worrying thoughts. Hannah Spring (2013) presented some of the findings from her PhD that found when health librarians were asked about their barriers to research they reported that they didn't know what research questions to ask! Alternatively if they had research questions they didn't think to engage with the literature or believed that there was no evidence to answer them! If we really don't have any research questions, and we really don't think to look at the literature or there really is no evidence, this is worrying indeed for the future of EBLIP. It's also a situation I don't recognize from being involved in the EBLIP journal and was left wondering whether it was the health librarians perceptions of “research” and “evidence” that was the issue; questions which are being examined in the LIRG Scan which was described in another presentation. The scan is a review of the evidence on: What practitioners understand by research; what kind of research is relevant to LIS practitioners? How do they use research and what are the barriers and facilitators to using research in practice? (https://sites.google.com/site/lirgweb/home/awards/lirg-scan-award) The results will be used to help inform the Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals’ policy on research.The barrier which I’m much more familiar in terms of engaging with research or evidence, is that of accessing the literature. Our strap line says "EBLIP is an Open Access, peer reviewed journal which provides a forum for librarians and other information professionals to discover research that may contribute to 2decision making in professional practice. This is an ethos of which we are proud because we aim to overcome the barriers to making research accessible. For EBLIP, as a journal that strives to make LIS research accessible to the practitioner, open access is the only way forward.I'm pleased to say that this issue is full of both research and evidence, and I hope it will answer some of the questions that arise from your practice, or at least go some way towards doing so. I'm particularly pleased that we have a Feature section on Assessment that comprises articles from the 2010 Library Assessment conference which took place in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. The articles have been peer reviewed at abstract level for acceptance to the conference but appear here as “conference papers”. We are happy to provide an open access forum to this conference material, and welcome the addition of the assessment agenda to the EBLIP journal.Assessment in libraries is an area which isn't always labeled research or evidence based practice but nevertheless provides a wealth of evidence and helps answer questions and demonstrate the impact and value of our library services. These are areas that are crucial to and synonymous with evidence based practice. At our HEALER day, demonstrating value and impact were discussed as areas of research interest that may not always be seen as research by librarians. Demonstrating value and impact is a recurring theme within this issue as we also have a conventional article that was presented at the 2012 Assessment conference (Griffin et al, 2013) as well as Carol Tenopir’s’ commentary on measuring value based on a Keynote address at the DREaM conference that was held in the UK in July 2012.From this issue onwards there are a number of changes within our editorial team. Wayne Jones has left to take up new interests and I would like to thank Denise Koufogiannakis for covering in the interim period. Lorie Kloda is moving to Associate Editor (Articles) and she will be joined by Derek Rodriguez from University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill as a second Associate Editor (Articles) to help with our increasing workload. Heather Pretty is moving to Associate Editor (Evidence Summaries) and Michelle Dunaway is our new Production Editor. We have a new Editorial Intern, Archana Deshmukh from the University of Brighton and Richard Hayman will be our new lead Copy Editor.Finally if you are going to be attending EBLIP7 in Saskatoon in July, I look forward to meeting you there and providing further updates about the EBLIP journal
- …
