1,720,997 research outputs found
Towards Open Science: The myExperiment approach
No full textBy making research content more reusable, and providing a social infrastructure which facilitates sharing, the human aspects of the scholarly knowledge cycle may be accelerated and ‘time-to-discovery’ reduced. We propose that the key to this is the sharing of methods and processes. We present myExperiment, a social web site for discovering, sharing and curating Scientific Workflows and experiment plans, and describe how myExperiment facilitates the management and sharing of research workflows, supports a social model for content curation tailored to the researcher and community, and supports Open Science by exposing content and functionality to the users’ tools and applications. Based on this we introduce the notion of the Research Object – the work objects that are built, transformed and published in the course of scientific experiments – and suggest that by encapsulating methods with results we can achieve research that is more reusable and repeatable and hence rapid and robust
Source-to-Output Repositories – Phase Two Summative Evaluation Final Report
Full text linkThis document presents the final results of the phase two summative evaluation of the
UKDA-StORe project’s portal repository system. After the completion of the regular
funding phase of StORe under the JISC Digital Repositories programme in 2007 the
project was granted an extension until mid-2008 to further refine the portal under the
name UKDA-StORe. For the regular project a phase one summative evaluation
assessed “the technical structure, functionality, design and quality of the demonstrator
system, and the appropriateness of the ‘common model’ approach, using workshops to
test the system with representative repository users”. It was agreed to conduct a
phase two summative evaluation to further assess the development of UKDA-StORe
and to complement the findings of the first evaluation phase.
The phase two summative evaluation is based on a series of five expert user
interviews to evaluate the StORe system in use. In the phase one evaluation it is
stated, that “it is probable that a second complementary evaluation phase will be
conducted in the future also based on the approach introduced here”. This endeavour
could be realised in general, but under other specifications: As the UKDA-StORe
extension did not consist of a user base for the evaluator to draw on the approach had
to be modified – from user evaluation workshops to qualitative evaluation interviews
with domain experts – with the task to evaluate the system in regard to barriers and
facilitators to use and usability issues unchanged
StORe: Phase One Summative Evaluation Final Report
No full textThis document presents the final results of the phase one summative evaluation of the
StORe project’s pilot demonstrator prototype system. As stated in the ‘Summative
Evaluation Plan v1.3’ for WP 5 (see Appendix A), the “evaluation will assess the
technical structure, functionality, design and quality of the demonstrator system, and
the appropriateness of the ‘common model’ approach, using workshops to test the
system with representative repository users”.
In the recently completed two year StORe project a social science pilot demonstrator
system has been built up and refined according to the stages of work (see
http://jiscstore.jot.com/PilotMiddleware) at the UK Data Archive (UKDA). It
federates a UKDA source repository and the Research Articles Online institutional
output repository (ePrints) of the London School of Economics (LSE), based on the
common/generic model, as outlined in the ‘WP 3: Business Analysis’ report. This
business analysis report is one base document for the summative evaluation and itself
based on data gathered in the ‘WP 2: Survey of Researchers’ (see
http://jiscstore.jot.com/SurveyPhase).
The summative evaluation consists of a workshop topic guide and a review of the WP
3 business analysis report described in the chapters 2 and 3, both part of deliverable
one already presented in two separate reports end of April 2007 (for more details on
deliverables see Appendix A). It turned out to be very difficult to commit users to
participate in the planned two workshops. In the end one workshop could be
conducted with only three users taking part, who not even had been participants in the
StORe project before. Due to these circumstances this final report is called phase one,
as it is probable that a second complementary evaluation phase will be conducted in
the future also based on the approach introduced here. This process and its
repercussions are described in detail under ‘Change Management’ in chapter 4.
Chapter 5 shows how the workshop session occurred eventually (part of deliverable
one) and chapter 6 finally presents the results of the evaluation (deliverables one and
two).
During the evaluation a close collaboration with the UK Data Archive in Essex was
invaluable concerning the appropriate dates for the workshops, the technical
prerequisites and demands for the user testing as well as respecting the knowledge and
experience towards the pilot and its ongoing development and use
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
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
- …
