1,720,982 research outputs found
Publication efficiency among the higher impact factor nursing journals in 2009: A retrospective analysis
No full textBackground: Knowledge translation is attracting different professional, educational and institutional strategies mainly focused on how new knowledge should be tailored and transferred at bedside. Less attention is dedicated to the antecedent of knowledge translation, which is the availability of the knowledge itself. Knowledge diffusion is a process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels among members of a social system over time. Publishing in peer review journals is recognised as the main method for knowledge diffusion: nevertheless publication efficiency has received little attention to date. Objectives: Describing publication efficiency via nursing journals as the time occurring between data collection and manuscript publication was the main aim of the study. The secondary aim was to discover the differences, if any, in publication efficiency within manuscripts reporting results from different study designs. Design: A retrospective study design was adopted in 2010. Methods: The 2009 Impact Factor List of Nursing Journals published by the ISI web of Knowledge in 2010 was obtained. The first top ten IF Nursing Journals available as a full text and for which the overall ISI 5-Year Impact Factor was also available, was eligible. The articles published on paper by the selected journals, from 1st January to 31st December 2009, were then included. Commentaries, editorials and book reviews were excluded. For each article included, the following were evaluated: (a) the time occurring between each step of publication, from data collection to article submission, acceptance and publication online and on paper; and (b) the differences in the publication efficiency within articles reporting different study designs. Results: 1152 articles were included. From the end of data collection to manuscript publication online/on paper it takes an average of 981 days [CI95% 929-1032] (2.5-3 years). Meta-analysis and systematic reviews have demonstrated the fastest process, requiring an average 1.3 years and 1.9 years respectively. Case-control, cohort and quasi-experimental studies have required more time to enjoy publication in nursing journals, 4 years, 3.5 years and 3.2 years respectively. Conclusions: The production time of an article from its data collection involves significant processes and skills. However, the time may also be lengthened by factors not related to the processes of research, such as the time available to researchers. The scientific world needs to reflect on publication efficiency because lateness can potentially have a negative impact on patients and on further research. In the future, the same emphasis given to the evaluation of knowledge translation effectiveness should be given also to the complex process of knowledge diffusion, discovering facilitators and barriers. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd
Publication efficiency among the higher impact factor nursing journals in 2009: a retrospective analysis
No full textPremessa: verso un Diritto sanitario transfrontaliero?
No full textPrefazione al volume collettaneo, nella quale si tratteggiano i caratteri di un costituendo dritto sanitario transfrontalier
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
- …
