1,720,965 research outputs found
sj-docx-2-rea-10.1177_17470161231198402 – Supplemental material for Can moral case deliberation in research groups help to navigate research integrity dilemmas? A pilot study
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-2-rea-10.1177_17470161231198402 for Can moral case deliberation in research groups help to navigate research integrity dilemmas? A pilot study by Tamarinde L Haven, Bert Molewijk, Lex Bouter, Guy Widdershoven, Fenneke Blom and Joeri Tijdink in Research Ethics</p
sj-docx-3-rea-10.1177_17470161231198402 – Supplemental material for Can moral case deliberation in research groups help to navigate research integrity dilemmas? A pilot study
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-3-rea-10.1177_17470161231198402 for Can moral case deliberation in research groups help to navigate research integrity dilemmas? A pilot study by Tamarinde L Haven, Bert Molewijk, Lex Bouter, Guy Widdershoven, Fenneke Blom and Joeri Tijdink in Research Ethics</p
sj-docx-4-rea-10.1177_17470161231198402 – Supplemental material for Can moral case deliberation in research groups help to navigate research integrity dilemmas? A pilot study
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-4-rea-10.1177_17470161231198402 for Can moral case deliberation in research groups help to navigate research integrity dilemmas? A pilot study by Tamarinde L Haven, Bert Molewijk, Lex Bouter, Guy Widdershoven, Fenneke Blom and Joeri Tijdink in Research Ethics</p
sj-docx-1-rea-10.1177_17470161231198402 – Supplemental material for Can moral case deliberation in research groups help to navigate research integrity dilemmas? A pilot study
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-1-rea-10.1177_17470161231198402 for Can moral case deliberation in research groups help to navigate research integrity dilemmas? A pilot study by Tamarinde L Haven, Bert Molewijk, Lex Bouter, Guy Widdershoven, Fenneke Blom and Joeri Tijdink in Research Ethics</p
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
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 PDFWe 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
Exploring the diversity of the World Conferences on Research Integrity
No full textDiversity in research refers to selecting research samples and teams that vary in terms of gender, socioeconomic background, ethnicity, age, etc. Diversity is crucial for producing research that is of high quality and relevance (1). To generate knowledge that is representative of the population at hand and prevent biases such as gender-bias, research samples need to be as diverse as the populations that they are supposed to represent (2). Similarly, diversity in research teams is crucial in producing and interpreting ideas in a way that takes into account numerous perspectives and is relevant to a wide audience (1, 3). Additionally, the rise of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research shows that diversity in research teams’ disciplinary backgrounds contributes to the generation of novel ideas and is critical for producing better research, especially concerning complex topics (4). Given that the field of research integrity (RI) is increasingly recognized as being more than about research misconduct, but also about producing research that is of high quality and relevance (5), it could be said that diversity considerations should play a crucial role in the field.
However, so far there has been little focus on diversity issues in RI endeavors. For instance, during the 6th World Conference on RI (WCRI) (6), there were few sessions explicitly addressing diversity issues, with only one concurrent session on research in the arts, humanities and social sciences, and one oral presentation on diversity and inclusion in peer review. It is unclear why diversity issues do not play a larger role in the field of RI, given that both diversity in research and RI lead to the same outcomes (i.e. better research). To understand this phenomenon better, it would be interesting to explore 1) how diverse the field of RI is itself, and 2) the importance ascribed to diversity by those working in the field of RI. Exploring these two factors in relation to one another can provide insights into why diversity issues are not on the front of the RI agenda. This knowledge is important in order to understand the role of diversity in the field of RI, as well as to make some recommendations about if and how the field of RI should place more emphasis on diversity issues. Therefore, in this study we will explore the diversity of people working in the field of RI. Since the WCRIs are a key event for researchers and research stakeholders working in the field of RI, we will focus on the participants and speakers of the WCRIs as representatives of all people working in the field of RI. Considering that of the little existing available literature on the topic, it is thought that academic conferences often lack diversity, especially among keynote and plenary speakers, it would be interesting to explore whether the same can be observed at the WCRI (7-11).
References:
1. Policy A-MP. The LancetGroup’s commitments to gender equity and diversity. Lancet. 2018;390:2423-24.
2. Upchurch M. Gender bias in research. The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies. 2016:1-4.
3. Fine C, Sojo V. Women's value: beyond the business case for diversity and inclusion. The Lancet. 2019;393(10171):515-6.
4. Ledford H. How to solve the world's biggest problems. Nature News. 2015;525(7569):308.
5. Research integrity is much more than misconduct. Nature. 2019;570(5).
6. 6th World Conference on Research Integrity Programme Book Hong Kong2019. https://wcrif.org/images/2019/PDF/6th_WCRI_final_prog_book.pdf.
7. Eichmann-Kalwara N, Jorgensen J, Weingart SB. Representation at Digital Humanities Conferences (2000-2015). JSTOR; 2018. p. 72-92.
8. Shishkova E, Kwiecien NW, Hebert AS, Westphall MS, Prenni JE, Coon JJ. Gender diversity in a STEM subfield–analysis of a large scientific society and its annual conferences. Journal of The American Society for Mass Spectrometry. 2017;28(12):2523-31.
9. Gerull KM, Wahba BM, Goldin LM, McAllister J, Wright A, Cochran A, et al. Representation of women in speaking roles at surgical conferences. The American Journal of Surgery. 2020;220(1):20-6.
10. Harris KT, Clifton MM, Matlaga BR, Koo K. Gender Representation among Plenary Panel Speakers at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting. Urology. 2020.
11. Fournier LE, Hopping GC, Zhu L, Perez-Pinzon MA, Ovbiagele B, McCullough LD, et al. Females Are Less Likely Invited Speakers to the International Stroke Conference: Time’s Up to Address Sex Disparity. Stroke. 2020;51(2):674-8
Exploring the diversity of the World Conferences on Research Integrity
No full textDiversity in research refers to selecting research samples and teams that vary in terms of gender, socioeconomic background, ethnicity, age, etc. Diversity is crucial for producing research that is of high quality and relevance (1). To generate knowledge that is representative of the population at hand and prevent biases such as gender-bias, research samples need to be as diverse as the populations that they are supposed to represent (2). Similarly, diversity in research teams is crucial in producing and interpreting ideas in a way that takes into account numerous perspectives and is relevant to a wide audience (1, 3). Additionally, the rise of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research shows that diversity in research teams’ disciplinary backgrounds contributes to the generation of novel ideas and is critical for producing better research, especially concerning complex topics (4). Given that the field of research integrity (RI) is increasingly recognized as being more than about research misconduct, but also about producing research that is of high quality and relevance (5), it could be said that diversity considerations should play a crucial role in the field.
However, so far there has been little focus on diversity issues in RI endeavors. For instance, during the 6th World Conference on RI (WCRI) (6), there were few sessions explicitly addressing diversity issues, with only one concurrent session on research in the arts, humanities and social sciences, and one oral presentation on diversity and inclusion in peer review. It is unclear why diversity issues do not play a larger role in the field of RI, given that both diversity in research and RI lead to the same outcomes (i.e. better research). To understand this phenomenon better, it would be interesting to explore 1) how diverse the field of RI is itself, and 2) the importance ascribed to diversity by those working in the field of RI. Exploring these two factors in relation to one another can provide insights into why diversity issues are not on the front of the RI agenda. This knowledge is important in order to understand the role of diversity in the field of RI, as well as to make some recommendations about if and how the field of RI should place more emphasis on diversity issues. Therefore, in this study we will explore the diversity of people working in the field of RI. Since the WCRIs are a key event for researchers and research stakeholders working in the field of RI, we will focus on the participants and speakers of the WCRIs as representatives of all people working in the field of RI. Considering that of the little existing available literature on the topic, it is thought that academic conferences often lack diversity, especially among keynote and plenary speakers, it would be interesting to explore whether the same can be observed at the WCRI (7-11).
References:
1. Policy A-MP. The LancetGroup’s commitments to gender equity and diversity. Lancet. 2018;390:2423-24.
2. Upchurch M. Gender bias in research. The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies. 2016:1-4.
3. Fine C, Sojo V. Women's value: beyond the business case for diversity and inclusion. The Lancet. 2019;393(10171):515-6.
4. Ledford H. How to solve the world's biggest problems. Nature News. 2015;525(7569):308.
5. Research integrity is much more than misconduct. Nature. 2019;570(5).
6. 6th World Conference on Research Integrity Programme Book Hong Kong2019. https://wcrif.org/images/2019/PDF/6th_WCRI_final_prog_book.pdf.
7. Eichmann-Kalwara N, Jorgensen J, Weingart SB. Representation at Digital Humanities Conferences (2000-2015). JSTOR; 2018. p. 72-92.
8. Shishkova E, Kwiecien NW, Hebert AS, Westphall MS, Prenni JE, Coon JJ. Gender diversity in a STEM subfield–analysis of a large scientific society and its annual conferences. Journal of The American Society for Mass Spectrometry. 2017;28(12):2523-31.
9. Gerull KM, Wahba BM, Goldin LM, McAllister J, Wright A, Cochran A, et al. Representation of women in speaking roles at surgical conferences. The American Journal of Surgery. 2020;220(1):20-6.
10. Harris KT, Clifton MM, Matlaga BR, Koo K. Gender Representation among Plenary Panel Speakers at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting. Urology. 2020.
11. Fournier LE, Hopping GC, Zhu L, Perez-Pinzon MA, Ovbiagele B, McCullough LD, et al. Females Are Less Likely Invited Speakers to the International Stroke Conference: Time’s Up to Address Sex Disparity. Stroke. 2020;51(2):674-8
- …
