1,721,042 research outputs found
About the importance of the research question: a response to Ming Li et al.'s comments
No full textA reponse to Ming Li et al.'s comments on the use of the Cohen's kappa statistic in our paper : SEBOE, Paul, DE LUCIA, Sylvain. Evaluation of the productivity of hospital-based researchers: comparative study between the h-index and the h(fa)-index. In: Scientometrics, 2021, vol. 126, p. 7087-7096. doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-04040-8 https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:155783</p
Accuracy of PubMed-based author lists of publications and use of author identifiers to address author name ambiguity: a cross-sectional study
No full textObjective: To assess the accuracy of PubMed-based author lists of publications and use of author identifiers to address author name ambiguity. Methods: In this Swiss study conducted in 2019, 300 hospital-based senior physicians were asked to generate a list of their publications in PubMed and complete a questionnaire (type of query used, number of errors in their list of publications, knowledge and use of ORCID and ResearcherID). Results: 156 physicians (52%) agreed to participate, 145 of whom published at least one article (mean number of publications: 60 (SD 73)). Only 17% used the advanced search option. On average, there were 5 articles in the lists that were not co-authored by participants (advanced search: 1.0 (SD 2.6) vs. 5.9 (SD 13.9), p value 0.02) and 3 articles co-authored by participants that did not appear in the lists (advanced search: 1.5 (SD 2.0) vs. 3.6 (SD 8.4), p-value 0.05). Although 82% were aware of ORCID, only 16% added all their articles (39% and 6% respectively for ResearcherID). Conclusions: When used by senior physicians, the advanced search in PubMed is accurate for retrieving authors' publications. Author identifiers are only used by a minority of physicians and are therefore not recommended in this context, as they would lead to inaccurate results
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
Assessing database accuracy for article retractions : A preliminary study comparing Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science
No full textObjective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of metadata for retracted articles in Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS).
Methods: Twenty general internal medicine journals with an impact factor > 2 were randomly selected. RWD, PubMed, and WoS were used to retrieve all retracted articles published in these journals. Eight metadata variables were examined: journal, title, type of article, author(s), country/countries of affiliation, year of publication, year of retraction, and reason(s) for retraction (assessed only for RWD, as this information was unavailable in PubMed and WoS). Descriptive analyses were conducted to document errors across databases.
Results: Thirty-five retractions were identified, and 280 metadata entries (35 × 8) were analyzed. RWD contained the most metadata errors, affecting 16 articles and 20 metadata entries, including seven errors in year of publication, six in article type, six in author names (five misspellings, one missing two authors), and one in country of affiliation. WoS had one error (a missing author), and PubMed had none.
Conclusion: The relatively high error rate in RWD suggests that researchers should cross-check metadata across multiple databases. Given the preliminary nature of this study, larger-scale research is needed to confirm these findings and improve metadata reliability in retraction databases.</p
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
General internal medicine and family medicine journals
No full textLike research in general internal medicine, family medicine research can play an important role in improving medical knowledge. We aimed to compare articles published in family medicine journals with articles published in general internal medicine journals. In this bibliometric study, we retrieved 658 randomly selected quantitative articles published in 2016 in 18 high impact factor journals of family medicine and general internal medicine. We extracted the following data: author (gender, number of publications, and place of residence of the first author), paper (number of participants, study design) and journal characteristics (journal discipline, 2015 impact factor). We compared the two groups of articles, using multivariate logistic regressions adjusted for impact factor and intra-cluster correlations. The first author of the articles published in family medicine journals, compared to general internal medicine journals, was more often a woman (OR 2.8 [95%CI 1.8–4.4], P-value<.001), living in the Western world (OR 14.4 [95%CI 6.0–34.4], P-value<.001), and a less experienced researcher (<5 vs >15 publications: OR 2.4 [95%CI 1.5–4.0], P-value .01). In addition, these studies generally included more participants (>1000 vs <100: OR 3.5 [95%CI 1.4–8.6], P-value .02). There was no statistically significant difference in the study design between the two groups of articles (P-value .25). Despite some differences between the two groups of articles, studies published in family medicine journals do not appear to be any less ambitious in terms of study design and sample size than those published in general internal medicine journals
- …
