1,720,960 research outputs found
LISS panel > Economic Situation: Housing > Wave 13
No full textThis is the thirteenth wave of the survey Housing. This survey is part of the LISS Core Study
LISS panel > Economic Situation: Housing
No full textThis survey is part of the LISS Core Study, a longitudinal study delivering a broad range of social core information about the panel members. The survey focuses on housing
LISS panel > Economic Situation: Income > Wave 14
No full textThis is the fourteenth wave of the LISS Core Study module Economic Situation: Income
LISS panel > Economic Situation: Income > Wave 13
No full textThis is the thirteenth wave of the LISS Core Study module Economic Situation: Income
LISS panel > Economic Situation: Housing > Wave 14
No full textThis is the fourteenth wave of the survey Housing. This survey is part of the LISS Core Study
LISS panel > Economic Situation: Income > Wave 12
No full textThis is the twelfth wave of the LISS Core Study module Economic Situation: Income
LISS panel > Economic Situation: Housing > Wave 15
No full textThis is the fifteenth wave of the survey Housing. This survey is part of the LISS Core Study
LISS panel > Economic Situation: Housing > Wave 12
No full textThis is the twelfth wave of the survey Housing. This survey is part of the LISS Core Study
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe 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
- …
