305,131 research outputs found
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe 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
The clinical relevance and newsworthiness of NIHR HTA-funded research: a cohort study
No full textObjectiveTo assess the clinical relevance and newsworthiness of the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme funded reports.Study designRetrospective cohort study.SettingThe cohort included 311 NIHR HTA Programme funded reports publishing in HTA in the period 1 January 2007–31 December 2012. The McMaster Online Rating of Evidence (MORE) system independently identified the clinical relevance and newsworthiness of NIHR HTA publications and non-NIHR HTA publications. The MORE system involves over 4000 physicians rating publications on a scale of relevance (the extent to which articles are relevant to practice) and a scale of newsworthiness (the extent to which articles contain news or something clinicians are unlikely to know).Main outcome measuresThe proportion of reports published in HTA meeting MORE inclusion criteria and mean average relevance and newsworthiness ratings were calculated and compared with publications from the same studies publishing outside HTA and non-NIHR HTA funded publications.Results286/311 (92.0%) of NIHR HTA reports were assessed by MORE, of which 192 (67.1%) passed MORE criteria. The average clinical relevance rating for NIHR HTA reports was 5.48, statistically higher than the 5.32 rating for non-NIHR HTA publications (mean difference=0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.29, p=0.01). Average newsworthiness ratings were similar between NIHR HTA reports and non-NIHR HTA publications (4.75 and 4.70, respectively; mean difference=0.05, 95% CI ?0.18 to 0.07, p=0.402). NIHR HTA-funded original research reports were statistically higher for newsworthiness than reviews (5.05 compared with 4.64) (mean difference=0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.64, p=0.001).ConclusionsFunding research of clinical relevance is important in maximising the value of research investment. The NIHR HTA Programme is successful in funding projects that generate outputs of clinical relevance
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
No full textWe 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
Author, publisher and bookseller : a tripartite synergy in Nigerian book industry
No full textThis work is about the roles of Author, Publisher and Bookseller in Book development in
Nigeria. The paper started by delving into the history of Book Publishing in Nigeria after
which it proceeded by defining who an author, a publisher, and a bookseller is and
expatiated on the indispensable roles of these key actors in Nigerian Book Industry and in
the emerging Information Society. Furthermore, the various constraints to book
development were identified while the paper advised on how the Book Industry can be
further promoted in Nigeria. However, the paper concluded and made recommendations
on how the Book sector can help in enhancing scholarship in the country
An evidence rating service provided valid correlates of the clinical importance of medical articles and journals
No full textObjectives: The objective of this study was to determine reliability and validity of McMaster PLUS measures of scientific merit and clinical importance of articles in medical journals. Study Design and Setting: Analytic survey of peer-reviewed medical journals was carried out. Articles were qualified for inclusion by meeting (1) scientific criteria and (2) a clinical importance rating threshold. Included articles were sent as e-mail alerts to physicians according to their clinical interests. Internal measures included the number of high-quality, clinically important studies published in source journals and response to alerts. For external validation, we correlated internal measures with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and citation in DynaMed Plus (DMP). Results: We evaluated 34,232 articles from 57 journals. Inclusion criteria were met by 2,638 articles (7.71%). The number of qualifying articles per journal was correlated with the number of articles with high clinical importance ratings (r 0.96, P < 0.001), article alert clicks (r 0.86, P < 0.001), and DMP citations (r 0.99, P < 0.001). Correlation was lower with the JIF (r 0.68, P < 0.01). Conclusions: Measures of scientific merit and clinical importance of medical journal articles were strongly correlated with each other, less so with JIFs. Journals varied widely by these measures but, generally, few articles were both scientifically sound and clinically important
[Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author #2]
No full textReport to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author. The report contains a list of officers who gave depositions to the United States Attorney
[Report to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author #1]
No full textReport to Chief J. E. Curry, by an unknown author. The report contains a list of officers who gave depositions to the United States Attorney
Mining e-mail content for author identification forensics
No full textWe describe an investigation into e-mail content mining for author identification, or authorship attribution, for the purpose of forensic investigation. We focus our discussion on the ability to discriminate between authors for the case of both aggregated e-mail topics as well as across different email topics. An extended set of e-mail document features including structural characteristics and linguistic patterns were derived and, together with a Support Vector Machine learning algorithm, were used for mining the e-mail content. Experiments using a number of e-mail documents generated by different authors on a set of topics gave promising results for both aggregated and multi-topic author categorisation
- …
