1,721,156 research outputs found
Book review:"Contact Lens Practice" by Nathan Efron. Featured in Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 85 (3)
No full text"Contact Lens Practice" by Nathan Efron\ud
UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002\ud
528 pages, RRP $289.85\ud
\ud
Reviewed by ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR MICHAEL J COLLINS, School of Optometry,\ud
Queensland University of Technolog
Union building; Dr Nathan Efron from College of Optometry
No full textThis record was harvested from a previous catalogue system and will be withdrawn in 2025. Information in this record may be superseded or incomplete. Visit this record in UMA's new catalogue at: https://archives.library.unimelb.edu.au/nodes/view/306855Envelope contains 10 black and white 120 mm negatives268069
Item: [2007.0055.00331] "Union building; Dr Nathan Efron from College of Optometry
Global optometrist research ranking derived from a science-wide author database of standardised citation indicators
No full textPublications in refereed scientific journals provide a rigorous research base that underpins clinical optometric practice. Leading optometrists who generate this literature can be identified and ranked using standardised citation indicators. This work seeks to identify and rank all optometrists included in a Science-Wide author database of standardised citation indicators (S-W) and to compare this ranking with the Global Optometrist Top 200 Research Ranking (T200). A search was conducted for the names of all optometrists in the T200 who were included in the S-W, which is a world-wide listing of the top 2% of scientists in each of 174 subfield disciplines, ranked according to a composite citation indicator (cns) that excludes self-citations and corrects for multiple authorships and author order. The names of 66 optometrists are found in the S-W. Of these, 58 are designated as working in the primary sub-field ‘Ophthalmology & Optometry’; this listing, in rank-order of cns, is referred to as the ‘S-W-derived Optometrist Research Ranking’ (S-WORR). Australian optometrist Nathan Efron is ranked #1 in the S-WORR. The number (%) of optometrists in the S-WORR from each country is: the United States – 26 (45%), Australia – 12 (21%), the United Kingdom – 11 (19%), Canada – 5 (9%), Spain – 2 (3%), Hong Kong – 1 (2%) and South Africa – 1 (2%). The universities housing the equal highest number of optometrists in the S-WORR (five each) are the University of California, Berkeley, USA; the University of New South Wales, Australia; and Queensland University of Technology, Australia. There is a moderately strong correlation between T200 and S-WORR rankings (ρ = 0.6017, N = 58, p The S-WORR represents an elite cohort of optometrists who ought to be celebrated for their outstanding, leading and impactful contributions to optometric research.</p
[Book Review] "Contact lens practice, 3rd edition" Edited by Nathan Efron
No full textEmeritus Professor Efron needs no introduction to readers of Clinical and Experimental Optometry. He is an authority on contact lenses and the anterior eye, in particular the ocular response to contact lens-related hypoxia and corneal manifestations of diabetic neuropathy. For the third edition of Contact Lens Practice he has assembled an impressive international team of more than 30 co-authors hailing from industry, academia and clinical practice, with expertise in an array of subspecialties within the contact lens field..
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
The reveal
No full textIn this final blog documenting his arduous ophthalmic journey of retinopexy, cryopexy, vitrectomy and IOL surgery, Professor Nathan Efron reveals the true identity of those who treated him
- …
