1,720,995 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
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
Tips and tricks in performing a systematic review:Chapter 1 Why do, and what to do when starting a systematic review
No full textFrequently people ask what is a systematic review, what is the point, how does it differ from a normal literature review or meta-analysis, and what is the first thing I do to get started?To address the first point, a systematic review is: a systematic search of literature through designated and clearly defined sources, followed by systematic data analysis and explanation. It differs from a literature review because a literature review may only include articles that the author(s) know about and that support their beliefs. Therefore, the systematic review is supposed to be an unbiased and replicable representation of current knowledge with reference to a particular topic.The purpose of a systematic review can be considered to be twofold: to gather all existing knowledge and influence policy, process, and practice; and to generate hypotheses which need further research.The process that follows is nearly identical for each type of review.The first step is to outline your research question, and identify the knowledge you are looking to gather. Step two is to conduct some unsystematic research to check that a review does not already exist. The best places to look for a review are in databases that only have reviews: for example, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR); Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD); and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). If you are unable to find any completed reviews the CRD has a register of ongoing reviews. And if you still can not find any reviews have a ‘quick’ look on www.pubmed.gov using the review and meta-analyses limits.If you find a systematic review in the relevant area, look to see if: it directly answers your question; when it was implemented, as many reviews need updating; and if it is a good quality review.To assess its quality read the QUORUM statement, which defines what a high quality systematic review should entail.If you still think you need to perform a review, the next step is gathering preliminary evidence (details in next month's issue of the Journal
Tips and tricks in performing a systematic review:Chapter 3 Reference management and identifying search terms and keywords
No full textPreviously you have identified a number of articles that you think should be included in your systematic review. Now begins the process of identifying keywords and keeping on top of the logistics of performing a review.When performing a systematic review you usually have a large number of references which you need to process and organise. To do this it is worth investing in reference management software mainly because they can handle a very large number of references quickly and efficiently without being plugged into the internet.Currently there are two styles of reference management software, web-based (for example, Refworks), and my preference; offline packages, (for example, Endnote).Now begins the process of identifying search terms and keywords. Search terms are words which are included in the search strategy, and they appear in the title and abstract of the article. However, the keywords and MeSH are not so easy to spot, sometimes you can see the author selected keywords which index the articles, but typically the MeSH headings are not visible as they are retrospectively applied. To easily see the MeSH of your article you need the help of your reference management software.After you have familiarised yourself with your software, you need to locate all your previously identified articles on MEDLINE and import them into your reference database. When importing references it is imperative that you import reference information as well as the keywords/MeSH and the abstract.The next step is to print your references which must include your title, abstract and keywords/MeSH. To print all of these fields you need to edit the output style in your software and add the abstract and keyword fields to the output. All that's left to do is go through each reference and identify each term in the title and abstract which typifies the content of the article, and reflects your research question.Next chapter: building a PICO search strategy
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
- …
