1,721,169 research outputs found

    Is my paper relevant for an international audience?

    Get PDF
    This is the first question one should consider before submitting a paper to an international journal. The answer is simple: If researchers or practitioners from another country can learn something from your paper that can influence a practice or a research they are involved in, then your paper is relevant for an international audience. There are many elements that can influence in this cross-border transferability. One could think that having a big "n", or performing complex statistical calculations, or using complicated study designs makes the paper more attractive to colleagues from other countries. These elements can help, but they are not sufficient. On the other hand, one could think that a study performed in a small hospital in a given country will never be of interest for these foreign colleagues. That is not necessarily correct. Let's burst some myths

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    The 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

    Authors, peer reviewers, and readers: What is expected from each player in collaborative publishing?

    Get PDF
    Scholarly publishing is in a crisis, with the many stakeholders complaining about different aspects of the system. Authors want fast publication times, high visibility and publications in high-impact journals. Readers want freely accessible, high-quality articles. Peer reviewers want recognition for the work they perform to ensure the quality of the published articles. However, authors, peer reviewers, and readers are three different roles played by the same group of individuals, the users of the scholarly publishing system-and this system could work based on a collaborative publishing principle where "nobody pays, and nobody gets paid"

    Variations on the Author

    Get PDF
    “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

    Get PDF
    We 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

    Consistency of Medical Subject Headings assignment: A test-retest reliability analysis

    No full text
    Introduction: Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) are the controlled vocabulary used by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to index articles covered by MEDLINE. Objective: Evaluate the consistency of MeSH assignment using a test-retest analysis of articles published multiple times. Methods: Three sets of articles that had been published multiple times were selected: Vancouver Group articles, CONSORT Statement articles, and Granada Statement articles. The articles publishing these position papers were searched in PubMed in February 2025, and their records were exported in XML format. The articles' metadata, the assigned MeSH terms, and the indexing methods were extracted. Consistency was assessed using Fleiss' kappa for inter-rater agreement and Krippendorff's alpha for classification reliability, considering each article as a different rater. Results: A total of 6, 8, and 5 articles indexed in MEDLINE were retrieved that had published articles with Vancouver, CONSORT, and Granada statements, with 14, 6, and 10 different MeSH terms assigned, respectively. The first two sets of articles were manually indexed, while the Granada articles were automatically indexed. Fleiss' kappa for the MeSH terms assigned to the Vancouver, CONSORT, and Granada articles were -0.390, -0.370, and -0.333, respectively, and Krippendorff's alphas were 0.178, 0.525, and 0.183, respectively. Periodicals as Topic and Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic were used in all Vancouver and CONSORT articles, respectively. Except for Humans, no other MeSH terms appeared in all Granada articles. The most prevalent terms were Pharmacy and Pharmacies and Pharmacy Research. Geographic MeSH terms were assigned to the Vancouver and Granada articles. Conclusion: A highly inconsistent MeSH indexing pattern was found across the three sets of articles. Automated indexing of the Granada Statements articles did not improve the results

    Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts

    Get PDF
    We 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
    corecore