1,720,956 research outputs found
Are Technologies Useful and Easy to Use: Results of A Cross-Sectional Survey
Full text linkTools and technologies have strengths and weaknesses and can either reduce or increase complexity and make work easier or harder. This article aims to report the results of a survey that assessed the usefulness and ease of use of tools and technologies, and perceptions of participants about tools and technologies as a factor in complexity and project failure. A cross-sectional survey of 114 project managers, researchers, and decision-makers was conducted to assess if tools and technologies that participants use in their work are useful and easy to use by asking two questions based on a validated tool of user acceptance of technologies. Additionally, two questions asked participants which tools and technologies were most helpful in their work – one was an open question, and the other provided pre-selected choices of tools and technologies. Few participants chose tools and technologies as a factor that contributes to complexity and project failure, and most participants rated tools and technologies as useful and easy to use. However, the tools and technologies that were chosen by most as helpful for work, tend to be older and simpler and include tools such as checklists. In conclusion, even though tools and technologies are advancing rapidly, most participants in the current survey chose older tools and technologies as helpful in their work. The relevance of these findings is that there appears to be barriers to the adoption of newer technologies such as artificial intelligence and algorithms. The barriers to the adoption of new tools and technologies should be explored further
A Cross-Sectional Online Survey of Researchers, Project Managers, and Decision-Makers to Assess Factors That Contribute to Complexity and Project Success
Full text linkComplexity is a major problem for managers and decision-makers and needs to be addressed for projects to succeed. The aim of this study was to explore the factors contributing to complexity and project failure and success. An online cross-sectional survey of 114 researchers, project managers and decision-makers was conducted to explore these factors. Results showed that all participants who use project management indicated that it contributes to the success of their projects. Humans and human interactions were chosen by most participants as the main factor responsible for complexity. Most participants indicated that poor communication and collaboration was the biggest factor preventing them from achieving their goals. Participants mostly prefer working with people that they have a lot in common with, and most indicated that smaller teams of four to five people are better for optimal performance compared with larger team sizes. Feeling valued, respected, and being adequately rewarded motivated participants to perform well. In conclusion, project management may be able to improve the chances of project success. Addressing human factors and interactions may reduce complexity and motivate people to perform well. Limitations of this research include convenience sampling and subjective responses to a cross-sectional survey rather than objective measurement of outcomes
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
Variations on the Author
Full text link“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
Full text linkWe 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
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe 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
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
