1,720,962 research outputs found
Editorial
Full text linkI am pleased to present Issue 6.3. Articles in this issue focus on aspects of teaching. Sara Sohr-Preston and colleagues examine the student rating of professors. In their empirical work, the authors demonstrate that there are multiple factors, some of which are not under the control of the professor, influence student ratings; this suggests that ratings should be used by faculty and administrators cautiously in any administrative decision process. David Giacalone provides results of a study showing the value of case-based scenarios and audience response systems to improve student learning. We are pleased to publish these works that further scholarship related to learning.As we come to the last quarter of the year, I wanted to let you know that, in 2017, we are going to shift our publication strategy somewhat. We are going to reduce to two issues per year, one that publishes in June and the other in December. To ensure that articles are available throughout the year, we will begin publishing on a rolling basis. This means that once we receive a manuscript, and it is accepted for publication, it will be published online right away. Published articles will then be collected and put into an issue twice each year. We hope that this, along with our goal to continue to reduce the time to publication, will allow you to showcase your work right away to the larger academic and professional communities. We thank you for your readership of the Higher Learning Research Communications journal and encourage you to consider our journal for your publication needs
Front Matter
No full textHigher Learning Research Communications (HLRC, ISSN: 2157-6254 [Online]) is published collaboratively by Walden University (USA), Universidad Andrés Bello (Chile), Universidad Europea de Madrid (Spain) and Istanbul Bilgi University (Turkey). Written communication to HLRC should be addressed to the office of the Executive Director at Laureate Education, Inc. 701 Brickell Ave Ste. 1700, Miami, FL 33131, USA. HLRC is designed for open access and online distribution through www.hlrcjournal.com.The views and statements expressed in this journal do not necessarily reflect the views of Laureate Education, Inc. or any of its affiliates (collectively “Laureate”). Laureate does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of those views or statements and does not accept any legal liability arising from any reliance on the views, statements and subject matter of the journal.Acknowledgements The Guest Editors gratefully acknowledge the substantial contribution of the readers for the blind peer review of essays submitted for this special issue as exemplars of individuals from around the world who have come together in a collective endeavor for the common good: Robert Bringle (Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, US), Linda Buckley (University of the Pacific, US), Guillermo Calleja (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain), Eva Egron-Polak (International Association of Universities, France), Heather Friesen (Abu Dhabi University, UAE), Saran Gill (National University of Malaysia, Malaysia), Chester Haskell (higher education consultant, US), Kanokkarn Kaewnuch (National Institute for Development Administration, Thailand), Gil Latz (Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, US), Molly Lee (higher education consultant, Malaysia), Deane Neubauer (East-West Center at University of Hawaii, US), Susan Sutton (Bryn Mawr College, US), Francis Wambalaba (United States International University, Kenya), and Richard Winn (higher education consultant, US)
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
- …
