1,735,705 research outputs found
Transcript: Andrew A. Culberton's speech, June 19, 1942
No full textSpeech, 3 pages, given at Wattsburg, P
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
Author Response
No full textReply to the letter to the Editor “Complete transparency of a systematic review for readers”.
First of all, we thank for the contribution aimed to improve a complete transparency of our systematic review for readers. It allows us to clarify some aspects that we did not specify in the published manuscript.
We agree with you on the importance of the PRISMA statement that guided our systematic review, because the first author of its original paper, Prof. Liberati Alessandro, who disappeared prematurely, was our mentor. This can be an opportunity to remember him and his great commitment to the scientific community. Therefore, we confirm that we followed the PRISMA statement suggestions concerning the methods used for the systematic review. More specifically, despite we did not register the study protocol, we did not amend in any case our research design after the initiation of our study.
A protocol exists but it was not made public and it is a “data not shown”. In the protocol we established a priori the objectives and methods of our review, the outcomes, the methods of data extraction and those for qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The protocol was not modified during the editing of the systematic review.
Moreover, we extracted data in an agreed beforehand report, an excel cartel with color codes. We verified the report on some randomly selected studies and then it was improved accordingly. Subsequently two authors extracted all the data independently. The disagreements were solved by discussion among all the authors and if consent was not reached the decision was made by the most expert author. It was not necessary contacting other authors for more information.
We searched data about the characteristics of participants (e.g. age, diagnosis, symptoms, red flags, inclusion and exclusion criteria), the characteristics of interventions (e.g. type, dosage, position, and time of traction, and type of physical therapy interventions), the characteristics of outcome measures for pain and disability.
The data we extracted from included studies were about authors (names of Authors, countries, and publication years), characteristics of participants (number of participants for each group, mean age, and gender), outcome measures employed for pain and disability (e.g. VAS, NRS, Neck Pain and Disability Scale, etc.), follow-up timing (e.g. immediately post-treatment and/or at different post-treatment intervals), results (means and standard deviations at pre- and post-treatment for each outcome measure and for each follow-up time), and adverse events.
We hope that these clarifications will improve the readability of the systematic review on the effectiveness of traction added to physical therapy interventions in cervical radiculopathy
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
- …
