125,346 research outputs found
Reviewer recommendations and editors' decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot?
No full textAbstract not available.Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz, Richard B. Primack, Lian Pin Ko
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe 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
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
No full textWe 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
Waterpipe tobacco and cigarette smoking among university students in Jordan
No full textSETTING: While waterpipe and cigarette smoking have been well studied in Syria and Lebanon, data from Jordan are limited. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the relative prevalence of waterpipe tobacco and cigarette smoking among university students in Jordan, and to compare the demographic and environmental factors associated with each form of tobacco use. DESIGN: We surveyed 1845 students randomly recruited from four universities in Jordan. We used multivariable logistic regression controlling for clustering of individuals within universities to determine associations between demographic and environmental covariates and waterpipe tobacco and cigarette use. RESULTS: Waterpipe tobacco smoking rates were 30percent in the past 30 days and 56percent ever, while cigarette smoking rates were 29percent in the past 30 days and 57percent ever. Past 30-day waterpipe tobacco smoking rates were 59percent for males and 13percent for females. Females had substantially lower odds than males of being current waterpipe (OR 0.12, 95percentCI 0.10-0.15) or cigarette (OR 0.08, 95percentCI 0.05-0.14) smokers. Current cigarette smoking was more significantly associated with markers of high socioeconomic status (SES) than waterpipe tobacco smoking. CONCLUSION: Waterpipe tobacco smoking is as common as cigarette smoking among Jordanian university students. While cigarette smoking is consistently associated with high SES, waterpipe tobacco smoking is more evenly distributed across various populations. © 2012 The Union.Afifi RA, 2010, EUR J PUBLIC HEALTH, V20, P456, DOI 10.1093-eurpub-ckp173; Akl EA, 2010, INT J EPIDEMIOL, V39, P834, DOI 10.1093-ije-dyq002; Almerie MQ, 2008, INT J TUBERC LUNG D, V12, P1085; Al Rashidi M, 2008, FOOD CHEM TOXICOL, V46, P3546, DOI 10.1016-j.fct.2008.09.007; Azab M, 2010, NICOTINE TOB RES, V12, P606, DOI 10.1093-ntr-ntq055; Barnett TE, 2009, AM J PUBLIC HEALTH, V99, P2014, DOI 10.2105-AJPH.2008.151225; Cobb C, 2010, AM J HEALTH BEHAV, V34, P275; Dar-Odeh NS, 2010, HARM REDUCT J, V7, DOI 10.1186-1477-7517-7-10; Dugas E, 2010, PEDIATRICS, V125, P1184, DOI 10.1542-peds.2009-2335; Eissenberg T, 2009, AM J PREV MED, V37, P518, DOI 10.1016-j.amepre.2009.07.014; Eissenberg T, 2008, J ADOLESCENT HEALTH, V42, P526, DOI 10.1016-j.jadohealth.2007.10.004; Jensen PD, 2010, SUBST USE MISUSE, V45, P1245, DOI 10.3109-10826081003682909; Khabour OF, 2011, ENVIRON MOL MUTAGEN, V52, DOI 10.1002-em.20601; Khader Y. S., 2008, Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, V14, P897; Knishkowy B, 2005, PEDIATRICS, V116, pE113, DOI 10.1542-peds.2004-2173; Lee D, 2007, ADDICT BEHAV, V32, P332, DOI 10.1016-j.addbeh.2006.05.002; Mandil Ahmed, 2010, J Infect Public Health, V3, P179, DOI 10.1016-j.jiph.2010.10.003; Maziak W, 2009, NICOTINE TOB RES, V11, P806, DOI 10.1093-ntr-ntp066; Maziak W, 2004, INT J TUBERC LUNG D, V8, P882; Maziak W, 2004, TOB CONTROL, V13, P327, DOI 10.1136-tc.2004.008169; Memon A, 2000, B WORLD HEALTH ORGAN, V78, P1306; Mohammed H. R., 2010, Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, V16, P1115; Neergaard J, 2007, NICOTINE TOB RES, V9, P987, DOI 10.1080-14622200701591591; Noar SM, 2005, HEALTH EDUC RES, V20, P275, DOI 10.1093-her-cyg113; Parna K, 2008, BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, V8, DOI 10.1186-1471-2458-8-392; Primack BA, 2010, J ADOLESCENT HEALTH, V46, P45, DOI 10.1016-j.jadohealth.2009.05.004; Primack BA, 2009, PEDIATRICS, V123, pE282, DOI 10.1542-peds.2008-1663; Primack BA, 2008, ANN BEHAV MED, V36, P81, DOI 10.1007-s12160-008-9047-6; Saade Georges, 2009, J Med Liban, V57, P243; Sepetdjian E, 2008, FOOD CHEM TOXICOL, V46, P1582, DOI 10.1016-j.fct.2007.12.028; Shafagoj YA, 2002, INT J CLIN PHARM TH, V40, P249; Shihadeh A, 2005, FOOD CHEM TOXICOL, V43, P655, DOI 10.1016-j.fct.2004.12.013; Smith-Simone S, 2008, NICOTINE TOB RES, V10, P393, DOI 10.1080-14622200701825023; Tamim H, 2003, ADDICTION, V98, P933, DOI 10.1046-j.1360-0443.2003.00413.x; Ward KD, 2006, TOB CONTROL, V15, pi248111
Mean first flowering dates for all species.
No full text<p>The annual mean first flowering dates and standard errors of 29 years of data are shown from Massachusetts (a) and 47 years from Wisconsin (b). Blue triangles = Thoreau and Leopold et al.; orange squares = Hosmer; red triangles = Primack et al. and Bradley et al..</p
Pragmatic Case Studies as a Source of Unity in Applied Psychology
No full textTo unify or not to unify applied psychology: that is the question. In this article we review pendulum swings in the historical efforts to answer this question—from a comprehensive, positivist, “top-down,” deductive yes between the 1930s and the early 60s, to a postmodern no since then. A rationale and proposal for a limited, “bottom-up,” inductive yes in applied psychology is then presented, employing a case-based paradigm that integrates both positivist and postmodern themes and components. This paradigm is labeled “pragmatic psychology” and, its specific use of case studies, the “Pragmatic Case Study Method” (“PCS Method”). We call for the creation of peer-reviewed journal-databases of pragmatic case studies as a foundational source of unifying applied knowledge in our discipline. As one example, the potential of the PCS Method for unifying different angles of theoretical regard is illustrated in an area of applied psychology, psychotherapy, via the case of Mrs. B. The article then turns to the broader historical and epistemological arguments for the unifying nature of the PCS Method in both applied and basic psychology.Peer reviewe
- …
