1,720,989 research outputs found
Figure 1 in Are publications on zoological taxonomy under attack?
Full text linkFigure 1. Scheme of selection of the 123 journals used in this study from the Web of Science Core Collection, Journal Citation Reports (JCR) Science Edition database of Clarivate. The selection was carried out from a total of 269 journals in Zoology (n = 69) and Entomology (n = 46) categories, plus top 10 zoological journals (TTJ, just eight are on JCR). Some journals are in more than one category, resulting in overlapping, two TTJ are not indexed in JCR.Published as part of Pinto, Ângelo Parise, Mejdalani, Gabriel, Mounce, Ross, Silveira, Luís Fábio, Marinoni, Luciane & Rafael, José Albertino, 2021, Are publications on zoological taxonomy under attack?, pp. 20-41 in Royal Society Open Science 8 (2) on page 23, DOI: 10.1098/rsos.201617, http://zenodo.org/record/454332
PESI - a taxonomic backbone for Europe
Full text linkReliable taxonomy underpins communication in all of biology, not least nature conservation\ud
and sustainable use of ecosystem resources. The flexibility of taxonomic interpretations,however, presents a serious challenge for end-users of taxonomic concepts. Users need standardised and continuously harmonised taxonomic reference systems, as well as high quality and complete taxonomic data sets, but these are generally lacking for non-specialists.\ud
The solution is in dynamic, expertly curated web-based taxonomic tools. The Pan-European Species-directories Infrastructure (PESI) worked to solve this key issue by providing a taxonomic e-infrastructure for Europe. It strengthened the relevant social (expertise) and information (standards, data and technical) capacities of five major community networks on taxonomic indexing in Europe, which is essential for proper biodiversity assessment and monitoring activities. The key objectives of PESI were: 1) standardisation in taxonomic reference systems, 2) enhancement of the quality and completeness of taxonomic data sets and 3) creation of integrated access to taxonomic information. \ud
New information\ud
This paper describes the results of PESI and its future prospects, including the involvement in major European biodiversity informatics initiatives and programs
PESI - a taxonomic backbone for Europe
Full text linkReliable taxonomy underpins communication in all of biology, not least nature conservation
and sustainable use of ecosystem resources. The flexibility of taxonomic interpretations,however, presents a serious challenge for end-users of taxonomic concepts. Users need standardised and continuously harmonised taxonomic reference systems, as well as high quality and complete taxonomic data sets, but these are generally lacking for non-specialists.
The solution is in dynamic, expertly curated web-based taxonomic tools. The Pan-European Species-directories Infrastructure (PESI) worked to solve this key issue by providing a taxonomic e-infrastructure for Europe. It strengthened the relevant social (expertise) and information (standards, data and technical) capacities of five major community networks on taxonomic indexing in Europe, which is essential for proper biodiversity assessment and monitoring activities. The key objectives of PESI were: 1) standardisation in taxonomic reference systems, 2) enhancement of the quality and completeness of taxonomic data sets and 3) creation of integrated access to taxonomic information.
New information
This paper describes the results of PESI and its future prospects, including the involvement in major European biodiversity informatics initiatives and programs.Ye
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
Data on which institutions have access to a 1949 paper, paywalled at Taylor & Francis
No full text<p>This is a dataset collecting various tweets from twitter, sent to @rmounce that report on whether various institutional library affiliations allow the user to download the full text of this paywalled article, that is otherwise only accessible via a payment of $38 + tax:<br />
<br />
<em>Hincks, W. D. 1949. IV.—systematic and synonymic notes on passalidæ (col.). Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2:56-64</em> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222934908653958</p>
<p>From the data given, it appears that 81 institutions do not have subscription access to this paper. 11 institutions do have subscription access to this paper.</p>
<p>Of the data from 41 UK-based institutions, only 3 have subscription access to this paper, namely: Cambridge, Oxford & Glasgow.</p>
<p>Many thanks to all those who took part in this survey and/or spread it around twitter.<br />
<br />
A blog post was written on the basis of this informal survey data: <a href="http://rossmounce.co.uk/2015/09/16/who-actually-has-access-to-paywalled-research/">http://rossmounce.co.uk/2015/09/16/who-actually-has-access-to-paywalled-research/</a></p>
<p> </p>
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
- …
