1,720,970 research outputs found
Copyright as Monopoly: the Italian Fire under the Ashes [traduzione in cinese del testo originale in inglese]
No full textThis essay provides an overview of some research that is in its early stages. The principal purpose of the authors is to understand whether, in a Continental European legal system such as the Italian one – traditionally led by a strong historical and normative vision of copyright (or author’s right) as natural right and nowadays influenced by the EU propertization trend – it is yet possible to foresee a different approach that is prone to interpreting the exclusivity of copyright in terms of monopoly. The latter approach, to some extent, might in fact be more relevant to restricting copyright protection by limiting the exclusive rights (ius excludendi alios) while supporting the public interest. Besides, the vision of “copyright as monopoly” seems in particular to play an overriding role within the digital context, where property is less apt in terms of the promotion and sharing of knowledge and, on the contrary, monopolistic jeopardy is sensibly flourishing
Referee report. For: Identifying the challenges in implementing open science [version 1; referees: 1 approved]
No full text
D5.5 Guidelines & FAQs (GM) industries – Final version
Full text linkAs one of its main endeavours, reCreating Europe aims at engaging with its stakeholders to produce deliverables that effectively contribute to the state of the art of research and possibly build a regulatory framework towards a culturally diverse, accessible creative Europe. With a specific focus on cultural heritage institutions like galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs), the activities of WP5 precisely address the needs of such organisations through a mixed methodology that combines theoretical research with empirical analysis, e.g., online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, which most WP5 deliverables have or will be based on.
The present output, which comprises a descriptive analysis of the legal framework (part 2), a set of Frequently Asked Questions (part 3) and Guidelines (part 4), all focusing on digital preservation, the use of orphan works and use of out-of-commerce works, precisely follows this approach. The work builds upon preceding deliverables D5.1 Report on the existing legal framework for Galleries and Museums (GM) in EU1 and D5.2 Report on the existing legal framework for Libraries and Archives (LA) in the EU.2 Both these reports were produced based on the research carried out under T5.1 European Legal Framework for GLAM industries: from closure to openness.
The goal of this deliverable is to produce a first draft of Guidelines and FAQs to help GLAMs deal with some selected issues arising from digitisation. The draft will be circulated during the upcoming workshops organised under WP5, in which participants will be invited to discuss the FAQs and apply the guidelines to suggest (a) whether different and/or clearer rules (i.e., considering laws and policies) may facilitate the process of dealing with the identified controversial issues, and (b) whether the current legal framework is too strict to comply with, and thus possibly hindering GLAM’s mission of democratising culture.
The present deliverable also mirrors - to the extent possible - its twin deliverable D5.4 Guidelines & FAQs (LA) industries - Interim version,3 which was dedicated to Libraries and Archives, under T5.2 Implementation of legal requirements and criteria for openness.
Both D5.3 and D5.4 are designed to serve as instruments (thus their temporary nature) for further discussion with stakeholders under T5.3 Valuing and engaging in openness with GLAM, to which these deliverables are presented during the dissemination or training events agreed under the project’s Grant Agreement. The outcomes of such a process will flow into the final version of the twin Guidelines & FAQs, with the wider goal of supporting digitalisation in the framework of a rebalanced copyright law.
It is worth specifying that the present deliverable has been used as a basis to develop a set of FAQs and Guidelines. The FAQs and the Guidelines have been adjusted after gaining specific insights from cultural heritage institutions (CHIs) that had tested the interim version, with the ultimate aim to provide a final version of FAQs and Guidelines with a bottom-up methodology to be more effective and useful for the GLAM community. GLAM professionals, who are on the front line, helped to reshape and adjust the FAQs that appeared too technical or comprehensible only to an academic or other expert audience and also to further clarify the Guidelines, addressing the most contentious topics they face in their everyday activities.
Note: Please see the Word Doc upload of this report for a screen-reader-accessible version. If you experience other accessibility issues with our work, please contact [email protected]
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
- …
