1,721,123 research outputs found
Wikidata as semantic representation platform of the scientific achievements of the biomedical Collaborative Research Centre 1002
No full text
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
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe 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
Designing a Metascience Institute
No full textThis proposal outlines an open, transparent and collaborative process to design a Metascience Institute that would apply the scientific method onto itself, with the mission to improve the research landscape systemically in terms of maximizing societal benefit and public documentation thereof. This facility is envisaged to engage in the systematic study of the research ecosystem, initially at a national level in Germany but later on also in other contexts. As such, the Metascience Institute would assess systemic properties, interactions of different components within and beyond the research system and how the roles played by various components are aligned with goals of relevant stakeholder groups and broader societal benefits. Collaborating with any interested stakeholders on an initially narrow yet steadily expanding range of intra- and transdisciplinary use cases and using an appropriate mix of experimental, theoretical, empirical and computational approaches, the Metascience Institute would assess existing and proposed policies and practices in the research ecosystem and engage in public discourse around them, including by assessing the relative costs, benefits and side effects of alternative parametrizations of the system. The project proposed here is to design the organizational structure of such a Metascience Institute in an evidence-based and community-led fashion, to seed it with organizational values, to establish it as an independent legal entity with open and transparent policies and practices, to provide it with an initial technical infrastructure online, to design evidence-based and sustainable mechanisms by which it prioritizes its activities, and to document the entire process in a way that would facilitate reuse and adaptation by other communities or entities aiming at evidence-based systemic improvements to the research ecosystem or selected niches within it
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
The ecology of FAIR Digital Objects, with special attention to roundtripping and benchmarking across the research ecosystem
No full textThe more findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (i.e. aligned with the FAIR Principles outlined by Wilkinson et al. 2016) a Digital Object is, the more likely it is to interact with other entities in the research ecosystem and beyond. As long as the interoperability of these entities is not perfect (and it rarely is), a variety of interactions with a given Digital Object (e.g. split, merge, aggregation, transformation, backup, upload, download, or updates of content, metadata, storage or permissions) will mean a variety of representations of it, with some closer to the original than others. This has consequences for how the information about Digital Objects or contained in them can move around the research ecosystem. In some contexts, multiple representations of a given original (or aspects of it) might exist, creating the need to assess similarities, differences and relationships and to include them in curation, management, education, dissemination and preservation workflows. In other contetxts, the sole copy of a Digital Object might exist on a legacy system with limited alignment to the FAIR Principles, which creates the need for generating more readily accessible backup copies and to adapt some of them for inclusion in contemporary workflows.In this presentation, we will look at the suitability of sets of FAIR Digital Objects to serve as indicators for several aspects of FAIRness across different elements of the research ecosystem. These sets could involve existing FAIR Digital Objects (e.g. data management plans, as per Mietchen 2021) as well as new or hypothetical ones, and inclusion or exclusion with respect to a given set could be defined using a wide range of criteria pertaining to the ecosystem elements of interest. Taking inspiration from tracing, monitoring, benchmarking and roundtripping activities in various research fields, we will then explore how far, how well and how quickly such sets - or their content - can travel through multiple elements of the research ecosystem (e.g. different databases or software pipelines or different stages of the research cycle) and what this means in terms of potential improvements to the FAIR Digital Objects themselves, to the sets and their contents, to the way the FAIR assessments are implemented or to relevant elements of the research ecosystem
- …
