186,392 research outputs found

    Büchertode

    No full text
    Körte M. Büchertode. In: Eder T, Kobenter S, Plener P, eds. Seitenweise : was das Buch ist. Wien : Ed. Atelier ; 2011: 204-218

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    No full text
    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

    Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis

    No full text
    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

    Autolesività non suicidaria (NSSI) e disturbo da comportamento suicida (SBD) nella recente pubblicazione del DSM-5

    No full text
    Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) and suicidal behavior disorder (SBD) have been included as diagnostic categories as conditions for further study in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). Both behaviors were defined for the first time in a classificatory system to standardize further research in this field, but are not recognized as a clinical entity yet. The aim of this paper was to introduce both concepts and to address some discussions preceding their introduction in DSM-5. Further we present some data on the prevalence of NSSI and SBD. A literature research was conducted in order to compare existing studies using the published criteria for NSSI and SBD to understand the prevalence of both conditions. Globally, our results showed that the comparability of prevalence studies is limited, since different criteria for NSSI and SBD have been utilized in the years before inclusion into DSM-5. The introduction of NSSI and SBD as diagnosis will lead to a better comparability of future studies. Especially the implementation of NSSI as a diagnostic entity would allow to avoid premature labeling of adolescent patients with the diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. Further, the recognition of these independent diagnoses can help to consider them as prognostic factors of psychiatric disorders, as well as risk factors for completed suicide. From the perspective of prevention, we conclude that the standardization of the definitions of both behaviors will spark urgently needed intervention studies in order to develop more specific therapeutic treatments for adolescents and adults with NSSI and SBD

    Withdrawn by Author

    No full text
    <p>Withdrawn by Author </p&gt

    Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts

    No full text
    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
    corecore