1,720,954 research outputs found
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe 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
observation as research practice
No full textMit dem Mikroskop wurde in den 1620er Jahren ein neues Instrument in die Naturforschung eingeführt, dessen Möglichkeiten man zunächst geradezu euphorisch begrüßte, gegen Ende des Jahrhunderts dann jedoch mit zunehmendem Zweifel bedachte. Diese Entwicklung und die Beobachtungen, welche verschiedene Forschern an zahlreichen Gegenständen durchführten, werden in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte bislang vor allem aus einer ideengeschichtlichen Perspektive heraus betrachtet und erklärt: Erfolg und Niedergang der mikroskopischen Forschung wären demnach abhängig vom Status, den bestimmte naturphilosophische Konzepte, etwa der wiederbelebte Atomismus, innerhalb der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft erhielten.
Der Aspekt der wissenschaftlichen Praxis und der Verlauf der Forschung im Einzelnen spielt unter dieser Perspektive bislang nur eine geringe Rolle. Zwar gibt es Untersuchungen zu den jeweils verwendeten Mikroskopen (sofern erhalten), Studien zum konkreten Vorgehen einzelner Forscher, ihrem Umgang mit diesen neuen Instrumenten und den ihnen eigenen Potentialen und Schwierigkeiten waren dagegen eher eine Seltenheit. Insbesondere stellt sich in diesem Zusammenhang die Frage nach der Motivation spezifischer Untersuchungen (1), den Beziehungen verschiedener Beobachtungen zueinander (2) und den Bedingungen, unter denen Beobachtungstechniken (3) entwickelt und hinterfragt wurden.
Ausgehend von diesen drei Teilfragen ergibt sich ein Bild der frühneuzeitlichen Mikroskopie, das sich grundlegend von den bisherigen, ideengeschichtlichen Entwürfen unterscheidet: Die Fragestellungen (1), welche den Beobachtungen zugrundelagen, wiesen zu Anfang noch einen engen Bezug zu Naturphilosophie, Naturgeschichte und Medizin auf. Schon bald verloren diese traditionellen Kontexte allerdings ihre Relevanz, und die Beobachtungen folgten zunehmend einer Richtung, die durch die Untersuchungen selbst vorgegeben wurde. Die zentrale Ursache hierfür lag darin, dass die untersuchten Objekte (2) über Vergleiche und Analogien in wechselseitige und stark fluktuierende Beziehungen zueinander gesetzt wurden. Dadurch entstand einerseits ein ständiger Bedarf an weiteren Beobachtungen, andererseits hingen die Interpretationen von Strukturen auch immer von den Ergebnissen früherer Untersuchungen ab.
Hinsichtlich der Methoden (3) zeigt sich eine immer stärkere Spezialisierung der Techniken nach den jeweiligen Erfordernissen der Beobachtungen, welche durch die dominierende Ansicht, dass es sich beim mikroskopischen Sehen um eine künstliche Form der Wahrnehmung handle, vorangetrieben wurde. Die Probleme und zunehmenden Unstimmigkeiten, die aus diesen Techniken erwuchsen, wurden zwar von einigen Forschern reflektiert, die individuelle Spezialisierung verhinderte jedoch scheinbar einen Austausch über diese Thematik untereinander.
Anstelle der allgemeinen, stringenten Entwicklung, die eine ideengeschichtliche Perspektive nahelegen würde, zeigen sich aus dieser praxisorientierten Perspektive zahlreiche nur wenig miteinander zusammenhängende Einzelgeschichten: Zwar arbeiteten viele Forscher, die sich des Mikroskops bedienten, zu ähnlichen Themen, ihre jeweiligen Ziele und Vorgehensweisen unterschieden sich jedoch, und der Austausch untereinander war trotz bestehender Möglichkeiten minimal. Dadurch wird zum einen deutlich, dass die zuvor als grundlegend angenommene Dominanz bestimmter abstrakter Ideen für die Forschung im Einzelnen kaum von Belang war. Zum anderen zeigt sich, dass wissenschaftliche Praxis insbesondere dann, wenn sie mit Instrumenten arbeitet, einer erheblichen Eigendynamik unterliegen kann.The microscope was introduced as a new instrument for research on nature in the 1620s, which possibilities were at first welcomed almost euphorically, but were considered with increasing doubt at the end of the century. This development and the observations, which the various researchers conducted on numerous objects, have been studied in the history of science mostly in respect to the role of ideas so far: success and demise of microscopical research hence would be linked to the status certain concepts of natural philosophy acquired in the scientific community, for example the revived notion of atomism.
Till now the issue of scientific practice and the specific process of research has only been addressed marginally. Even though studies concern the employed microscopes (insofar they are preserved) they seldom deal with the approach of the researchers themselves, their handling of these new instruments and the particular possibilities and problems of them. In this respect it is especially interesting what motivated specific investigations (1), in which way different observations were related to each other (2), and under what conditions observational techniques (3) have been developed.
These three questions lead to a perspective on early modern microscopy, which differs substantially from previous images, which are more based on conceptual history: The querries (3), which were the starting point of the observations, were closely related to topics from natural philosophy, natural history and medicine. These traditional contexts however soon lost their relevance and the observations progressively followed paths laid out by prior investigations. The main reason for this was the construction of diverse and fluctuating relations between the scrutinized objects (2). One the one hand this tendency produced a persistent need for further observations, on the other hand the interpretation of structures always depended on the results of older investigations.
The employed methods (3) display a growing specialisation of techniques in dependence on the particular demands of the observations. This was promoted by the dominating understanding of microscopic sight as an artificial perception. The problems and increasing contradictions, which were closely related to this development, were considered by some of the scientists, individual specialisation however seems to have prevented an exchange on this topic between them.
While the perspective of a history of ideas suggested a general, straight development, an emphasis of the practical aspects rather suggests various different stories with only very little connection: Even though most researchers, who used the microscope, worked on similar topics, their goals and procedures differed substantially and communication between them was minimal, despite the existing possibilities. This shows that the supposed dominance of abstract ideas was of only little significance on the level of specific research. But it also illustrates that scientific research, especially when it deals with instruments, can build up and depend highly on its own momentum
„Audio quibusdam scholia observationibus addita displicere.“: Textgenre und Kommunikation in den Miscellanea curiosa
Get PDF1670 gab die Academia naturae curiosorum den ersten Band der Miscellanea curiosa heraus. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Zeitschriften konzentrierten sich die Miscellanea von Anfang an auf Medizin und Naturforschung. Ihr Ziel war, die Kommunikation von Wissen innerhalb und außerhalb der Akademie zu fördern. Hierfür griff man das bereits etablierte Textgenre der Beobachtung (observatio) auf, kommentierte aber die Beiträge zuweilen auch in einer Weise, die zuvor nicht üblich war. Vor allem Letzteres führte wiederholt zu Kritik von Seiten der Autoren. Änderungen am Konzept der Zeitschrift wurden jedoch von den jeweiligen Herausgebern und Akademiepräsidenten abgelehnt. Dass die Herausgeberschaft letztlich zu einer Machtposition geworden war, zeigen auch die Konflikte zwischen den Herausgebern und dem Präsidenten.In 1670 the Academia naturae curiosorum published the first volume of the Miscellanea curiosa. In contrast to other journals the Miscellanea focused on medicine and natural sciences right from the start. It aimed at stimulating the communication of knowledge inside and outside of the academy. For this the editors made use of the established text genre of observations but also commented the contributions in a way, which was uncommon at the time. This lead to repeated criticism from the authors, but changes in the concept of the journal were refuted by the respective editors and academy presidents. Editorship had developed into a powerful position, which is also visible in the conflicts between the editors and the president
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“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
Get PDFWe 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
Get PDFWe 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
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
