1,081,061 research outputs found
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
We 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
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
The 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
Resolution with Counting: Dag-Like Lower Bounds and Different Moduli
Resolution over linear equations is a natural extension of the popular resolution refutation system, augmented with the ability to carry out basic counting. Denoted Res(lin_R), this refutation system operates with disjunctions of linear equations with boolean variables over a ring R, to refute unsatisfiable sets of such disjunctions. Beginning in the work of [Ran Raz and Iddo Tzameret, 2008], through the work of [Dmitry Itsykson and Dmitry Sokolov, 2014] which focused on tree-like lower bounds, this refutation system was shown to be fairly strong. Subsequent work (cf. [Jan Krajícek, 2017; Dmitry Itsykson and Dmitry Sokolov, 2014; Jan Krajícek and Igor Carboni Oliveira, 2018; Michal Garlik and Lezsek Kołodziejczyk, 2018]) made it evident that establishing lower bounds against general Res(lin_R) refutations is a challenging and interesting task since the system captures a "minimal" extension of resolution with counting gates for which no super-polynomial lower bounds are known to date.
We provide the first super-polynomial size lower bounds on general (dag-like) resolution over linear equations refutations in the large characteristic regime. In particular we prove that the subset-sum principle 1+ x_1 + ̇s +2^n x_n = 0 requires refutations of exponential-size over ℚ. Our proof technique is nontrivial and novel: roughly speaking, we show that under certain conditions every refutation of a subset-sum instance f=0, where f is a linear polynomial over ℚ, must pass through a fat clause containing an equation f=α for each α in the image of f under boolean assignments. We develop a somewhat different approach to prove exponential lower bounds against tree-like refutations of any subset-sum instance that depends on n variables, hence also separating tree-like from dag-like refutations over the rationals.
We then turn to the finite fields regime, showing that the work of Itsykson and Sokolov [Dmitry Itsykson and Dmitry Sokolov, 2014] who obtained tree-like lower bounds over ?_2 can be carried over and extended to every finite field. We establish new lower bounds and separations as follows: (i) for every pair of distinct primes p,q, there exist CNF formulas with short tree-like refutations in Res(lin_{?_p}) that require exponential-size tree-like Res(lin_{?_q}) refutations; (ii) random k-CNF formulas require exponential-size tree-like Res(lin_{?_p}) refutations, for every prime p and constant k; and (iii) exponential-size lower bounds for tree-like Res(lin_?) refutations of the pigeonhole principle, for every field ?
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
We 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
Dr. Edward P. Wimberly, ITC, July 2011
This video is a conversation with Dr. Edward P. Wimberly. Dr. Wimberly talks about his book, "No Shame in Wesley's Gospel: A Twenty-First Century Pastoral Gospel". Brad Ost, AUC Woodruff Library, is the interviewer
Author Rights and Scholarly Publishing
Originally posted at
http://blog.library.gsu.edu/2014/10/24/author-rights-and-scholarly-publishing/</p
Author-Illustrator
This essay investigates the concept author-illustrator by drawing on two influential essays – ‘Death of the Author’ by Roland Barthes and ‘What is an Author?’ by Michel Foucault. By engaging with the key points of debate that emerge from these positions, this essay argues that the notion of author-illustrator is part of a wider discursive field that is embedded in a complex, commodified, multimedia public sphere where the author is paradoxically reinscribed and erased. This environment is changing the nature of the text, authorship, and reader-text interaction, but until now the concept author-illustrator has been largely absent from these discussions
Mapping the Discipline of the Olympic Games An Author-Cocitation Analysis
The authors conducted an author cocitation analysis on prominent authors writing about the Olympics during the 1990s. Author cocitation is an established bibliometric technique that can be used to measure the relative similarities of topics written about by the cited authors. This enables a visual representation of the “intellectual space” of the discipline, in this case the Olympics, to be created for the period under review. So core and peripheral research areas are identified, along with their major contributors. The representation appears as a two-dimensional cluster-enhanced map. Subject expertise was then applied to the results to place labels on the generated clusters of authors and their topics
- …
