1,721,776 research outputs found
In Memoriam of Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin
Get PDF It is with great respect and appreciation that we dedicate this issue of the Fordham Law Review to the Honorable Joseph M. McLaughlin: judge, dean, professor, author, and mentor
In Memoriam of Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin
Get PDF Constantine Katsoris is the Wilkinson Professor of Law at the Fordham University School of Law. He delivered these remarks as part of a tribute to the Honorable Joseph M. McLaughlin on February 4, 2014, at Fordham Law School
In Memoriam of Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin
Get PDF Judge Cathy Seibel is a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. She delivered these remarks as part of a tribute to the Honorable Joseph M. McLaughlin on February 4, 2014 at Fordham Law School
In Memoriam of Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin
Get PDF Matthew T. McLaughlin is a partner at Venable LLP and a graduate of Fordham University School of Law. He delivered these remarks as part of a tribute to his father, the Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin, on February 4, 2014 at Fordham Law School
In Memoriam of Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin
Get PDF John D. Feerick is a Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law, where he served as Dean from 1982 to 2002. In addition, he is the founder and senior counsel of the Feerick Center for Social Justice at the Law School. He delivered these remarks as part of a tribute to the Honorable Joseph M. McLaughlin on February 4, 2014, at Fordham Law School
Recensione a M. Mclaughlin, Leon Battista Alberti: La vita, l’umanesimo, le opere letterarie
No full textRecensione a M. Mclaughlin, Leon Battista Alberti: La vita, l’umanesimo, le opere letterari
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
- …
