1,720,970 research outputs found
A new species of Stolephorus (Clupeiformes: Engraulidae) from the Bay of Bengal India
No full textPavan-Kumar, Annam, Jahageerdar, Shrinivas, Jaiswar, A. K. (2020): A new species of Stolephorus (Clupeiformes: Engraulidae) from the Bay of Bengal India. Zootaxa 4743 (4): 561-574, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4743.4.
FIGURE 5 in A new species of Stolephorus (Clupeiformes: Engraulidae) from the Bay of Bengal India
No full textFIGURE 5. Neighbour-joining tree of species of Stolephorus genera constructed using COI gene K2P distance values (*S. insularis / S. bengalensis sensu Hata et al. 2019); *S. waitei/ S. baweanensis sensu Hata et al. 2019).Published as part of Pavan-Kumar, Annam, Jahageerdar, Shrinivas & Jaiswar, A. K., 2020, A new species of Stolephorus (Clupeiformes: Engraulidae) from the Bay of Bengal India, pp. 561-574 in Zootaxa 4743 (4) on page 572, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4743.4.6, http://zenodo.org/record/369063
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
Stolephorus tamilensis Pavan-Kumar & Jahageerdar & Jaiswar 2020, sp. nov.
No full text<i>Stolephorus tamilensis</i> sp. nov. <p>Proposed common name: Tamil anchovy (Fig. 2)</p> <p> <b>Holotype</b>: ZSI F12077/2 (50.85 mm SL), Thoothukudi fish landing centre, Tamil Nadu, India (8.7642° N, 78.1348° E), 18 February 2015.</p> <p> <b>Paratypes:</b> All paratypes from Thoothukudi fish landing centre, Tamil Nadu, India, (8.7642° N, 78.1348° E), (Fig. 1) 18 February 2015: BNHS MF 10-12 (3 specimens, 48.48–51.16 mm SL), CIFE-FRM 945–971 (27 specimens, 47.37–53.64 mm SL) collected by Shardul S. Gangan on 18 February 2015.</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis.</b> A species of <i>Stolephorus</i> with the following combination of characters: relatively deep-bodied fish, 19.87–23.37% SL (mean 21.2%); eye relatively large, eye diameter 29.28–35.85% HL (mean 32.09%); posterior margin of preopercle indented; gill rakers 15–19 in upper series on first gill arch, 25–28 on in lower series, 40–47 in total; posterior tip of longest pectoral-fin ray not reaching pelvic-fin origin, pelvic-fin relatively short, 5.81–8.15% SL (mean 7.39%); no pre-dorsal spines and post-pelvic scutes, pre-pelvic scutes 5–6; dorsal-fin base length 13.85– 15.54% in SL (mean 14.57%); dorsal-fin origin is closer to base of caudal fin than to tip of snout; length from dorsal-fin origin to anal-fin origin 20.91–22.57 % in SL (mean 21.87%); anal-fin rays 17–19; numerous melanophores on dorsum and suborbital area.</p> <p> <b>Description.</b> Body cylindrical, laterally compressed. Dorsal profile of head and body slightly convex from snout tip to dorsal fin origin, somewhat straight from the last point to caudal peduncle. Ventral profile of head and body is convex from anterior lower jaw tip to base of pelvic-fin, slightly concave from post pelvic fin to anal-fin origin. Posterior margin of pre- opercule concave, indented. Numerous melanophores on dorsum and suborbital area. Somewhat straight from posterior end of anal-fin to origin of lower caudal-fin lobe. Caudal peduncle slightly deep than longer. Vertebrae 39–40 (two specimens examined). Belly covered with 5–6 sharp needle-like scutes anterior to pelvic-fin insertion. Pelvic-fin without spine. Pre-dorsal and post-pelvic scutes absent.</p> <p>Snout long, rounded, its length less than eye diameter. Mouth sub-terminal, extending backward beyond posterior margin of eye. Posterior end of the upper jaw rounded reaching to border of operculum. Lower jaw slender, extending beyond vertical through posterior margin of eye. Teeth pointed, small, slender, arranged in a single row in the pre maxilla, maxilla and lower jaw. Eye large, round, covered with adipose eye lid, positioned laterally on head dorsal to horizontal through pectoral-fin insertion, visible in dorsal view. Orbit elliptical. Nostrils close to each other, anterior to orbit. Inter orbital width less than eye diameter.</p> <p>Dorsal-fin rays ii–iii + 15, origin closer to base of caudal-fin than to tip of snout. Pair of pigment line in front of dorsal-fin as well as between caudal-fin and dorsal-fin is absent. Anal-fin rays iii + 17–19, its origin at vertical through middle of the dorsal-fin. Pectoral-fin rays I + 13, posterior tip of longest pectoral-fin ray not reaching pelvic-fin origin, pectoral-fin axillary scale found in some specimens but in the remained it was absent, may be lost during collection. Pelvic-fin rays i–ii + 7, longest pectoral-fin rays not reaching vertical through to base of dorsal-fin. Caudal-fin forked, upper and lower lobes of caudal-fin well-developed. Gill rakers long and thin on first branchial arch, 15 –19 on the upper arch, 25–28 on lower arch (Table 4).</p> <p> <i>Colour.</i> Colour of thirty specimens of <i>Stolephorus tamilensis</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> in fresh condition silvery whitish, very faint silvery stripe running along the lateral side; small dark pigment line running along upper border of anal fin.</p> <p> <b>Distribution.</b> Based on the collection of voucher specimens from present study, the type locality of <i>Stolephorus tamilensis</i> sp. nov. is Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu State of India 8.7642° N, 78.1348° E. Probably this species is distributed in Gulf of Mannar and along the Tamil Nadu State coast.</p> <p> <b>Etymology.</b> The species is named as “ <i>tamilensis</i> ” with reference to the Tamil Nadu, a state of India, the type locality of the species.</p> <p> <b>Comparisons.</b> <i>Stolephorus tamilensis</i> differs from congeners except <i>S. dubiosus, S. baganensis, S. bengalensis, S. carpenteriae, S. tri, S. ronquilloi, S. holodon,</i> and <i>S. andhraensis</i> by the hind boarder of the pre-operculm concave (<i>vs.</i> rounded in <i>S. indicus</i>, <i>S. commersonnii, S. waitei, S. chinensis, S. multibranchus, S. brachycephalus, S. advenus, S. nelsoni, S. apiensis, S. pacificus, S. continentalis, S. insignus</i> and <i>S. oceanicus</i>). The new species also distinguishes from <i>S. dubiosus, S. tri</i> and <i>S. baganensis</i> by the absence of pre-dorsal spine (<i>vs.</i> presence). Furthermore, <i>S. tamilensis</i> can be distinguished from <i>S. andhraensis</i> by the absence of scattered pigments between dorsal-fin and caudal peduncle (<i>vs.</i> presence). In addition, <i>Stolephorus tamilensis</i> is also distinct from <i>S. andhraensis</i>, <i>S. ronquilloi, S. tri, S. multibranchus, S. brachycephalus, S. apiensis, S. pacificus, S. insignus, S. continentalis, S. teguhi, S. baganensis</i>, <i>S. waitei, S. chinensis, S. bataviensis, S. baweanensis, S. bengalensis</i> and <i>S. oceanicus</i> by 25–28 gill rakers on the lower limb of the first gill arch (<i>vs</i>. 20–21 in <i>S. andhraensis,</i> 28–30 in <i>S. ronquilloi</i>, 18–22 in <i>S. tri,</i> 32–35 in <i>S. multibranchus,</i> 20–22 in <i>S. brachycephalus,</i> 30–31 in <i>S. apiensis,</i> 35–38 in <i>S. pacificus,</i> 26–28 in <i>S. insignus & S. continentalis</i>, 41–46 in <i>S. teguhi,</i> 20–23 in <i>S. baganensis</i>, 23–25 in <i>S. waitei,</i> 20–25 in <i>S. chinensis,</i> 19–22 in <i>S. bataviensis & S. baweanensis,</i> 22–27 in <i>S. bengalensis</i> and 24–28 in <i>S. oceanicus</i>). The new species also differs from <i>S. commersonnii, S. multibranchus, S. brachycephalus, S. advenus, S. pacificus</i>, <i>S. teguhi, S. chinensis, S. insignus, S. bataviensis</i> and <i>S. bengalensis</i> by 5–6 needle like pre-pelvic scutes (<i>vs.</i> 1–4 in <i>S. commersonnii,</i> 2–4 in <i>S. multibranchus,</i> 4–5 in <i>S. brachycephalus,</i> 7 in <i>S. advenus,</i> 1–4 in <i>S. pacificus</i>, 2–5 in <i>S. teguhi,</i> 4–7 in <i>S. chinensis, S. insignus</i> & <i>S. bataviensis,</i> and 5–8 in <i>S. bengalensis</i>). <i>Stolephorus tamilensis</i> is distinguishable from <i>S. multibranchus, S. brachycephalus, S. carpentariae, S. advenus, S. teguhi, S. chinensis, S. bengalensis</i> and <i>S. insignus</i> by 17–19 anal fin rays (<i>vs.</i> 18–20 in <i>S. multibranchus,</i> 19–22 in <i>S. brachycephalus,</i> 19–20 in <i>S. carpenteriae,</i> 16 in <i>S. advenus</i>, 19–21 in <i>S. teguhi,</i> 18–20 in <i>S. chinensis</i>, 16–19 in <i>S. bengalensis</i> and 18–19 in <i>S. insignus</i>).</p> <p> Furthermore, <i>S. tamilensis</i> differs from <i>S. commersonnii, S. indicus, S. waitei</i> (<i>S. baweanensis</i> sensu Hata <i>et al</i>. 2019), <i>S. insularis</i> (<i>S</i>. <i>bengalensis</i> sensu Hata <i>et al.</i> 2019), <i>S. baganensis, S. dubiosus</i> in eye diameter, dorsal fin base length, pelvic fin length, length between dorsal and anal-fin origins and maximum body depth (Table 3).</p> <p>...Continued next page</p> <p> * <i>S. waitei</i> (<i>Stolephorus baweanensis</i> sensu Hata <i>et al</i>. 2019), * <i>S. insularis</i> (<i>S. bengalensis</i> sensu Hata <i>et al</i>. 2019)</p> <p> <b>Note:</b> standard length or SL, snout length SNL (1), head length HL (2), postorbital head length POHL (3), interorbital width IOW (4), eye diameter ED (5), upper jaw length UJL (6), lower jaw length LJL (7), dorsal-fin base length DFBL (8), anal-fin base length AFBL (9), pelvic-fin base length PFBL (10), pelvic-fin length PLFL (11), pectoral-fin base length PTBL (12), pectoral fin long filament length PTFL (13), length from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin TSDF (14), length from tip of snout to origin of anal fin TSAF (15), length from tip of snout to origin of pelvic fin TSPF (16), length from tip of snout to origin of pectoral fin TSPTF (17), length from origin of dorsal fin to origin of anal fin AFDL (18), maximum body depth MBD (19), length from base of pectoral fin to origin of pelvic fin BPTFPL (20), length from base of pectoral fin to origin of anal fin BPTFAL (21), length from base of pelvic fin to origin of anal fin BPLFAF (22)</p> <p> <b>Statistical analysis of morphometric variables.</b> Higher F-ratio of more than 200 for ED/HL, DFBL/SL, PLFL/SL, AFDL/SL and MBD/SL reveal their better discrimination power than the other characters (Table 3). Herein, a higher F-value of 3309.651 and 2471.632 for ED/HL and MBD/SL, respectively, showed the importance of insertion point in species differentiation. However, comparative analysis showed overlapping meristic characters between <i>S. insularis</i> (<i>S. bengalensis</i> sensu Hata <i>et al.</i> 2019) and <i>S. tamilensis</i> (Table 4).</p>Published as part of <i>Pavan-Kumar, Annam, Jahageerdar, Shrinivas & Jaiswar, A. K., 2020, A new species of Stolephorus (Clupeiformes: Engraulidae) from the Bay of Bengal India, pp. 561-574 in Zootaxa 4743 (4)</i> on pages 563-568, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4743.4.6, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/3690639">http://zenodo.org/record/3690639</a>
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
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
- …
