1,720,962 research outputs found
sami-chaaban/starparser: v1.55
No full text<ul>
<li>Fixed bugs in expand_optics and version-less parsing.</li>
<li>Added warnings for import_mic_values and import_particle_values when some particles can't be matched.</li>
<li>Added the keep_mics_list option.</li>
</ul>
sami-chaaban/starparser: v1.55
No full text<ul>
<li>Fixed bugs in expand_optics and version-less parsing.</li>
<li>Added warnings for import_mic_values and import_particle_values when some particles can't be matched.</li>
<li>Added the keep_mics_list option.</li>
</ul>
sami-chaaban/starparser: v1.54
No full text<p>Fixed bugs in expand optics, import mic/particle values, and version-less parsing.</p>
sami-chaaban/starparser: v1.51
No full text<ul>
<li>Dramatically improved speed for import_particle_values and import_mic_values.</li>
<li>Removed the requirement for _rln when specifying column names.</li>
</ul>
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
- …
