1,720,990 research outputs found
Map of articles about "Teaching Open Science"
No full text<p>This description is part of the blog post "Systematic Literature Review of teaching Open Science" https://sozmethode.hypotheses.org/839</p>
<p>According to my opinion, we do not pay enough attention to teaching Open Science in higher education. Therefore, I designed a seminar to teach students the practices of Open Science by doing qualitative research.About this seminar, I wrote the article ”<a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/b3zf7">Teaching Open Science and qualitative methods</a>“. For the article ”Teaching Open Science and qualitative methods“, I started to review the literature on ”Teaching Open Science“. The result of my literature review is that certain aspects of Open Science are used for teaching. However, Open Science with all its aspects (Open Access, Open Data, Open Methodology, Open Science Evaluation and Open Science Tools) is not an issue in publications about teaching.</p>
<p>Based on this insight, I have started a systematic literature review. I realized quickly that I need help to analyse and interpret the articles and to evaluate my preliminary findings. Especially different disciplinary cultures of teaching different aspects of Open Science are challenging, as I myself, as a social scientist, do not have enough insight to be able to interpret the results correctly. Therefore, I would like to invite you to participate in this research project!</p>
<p>I am now looking for people who would like to join a collaborative process to further explore and write the systematic literature review on “Teaching Open Science“. Because I want to turn this project into a Massive Open Online Paper (MOOP). According to the <a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/b3zf7">10 rules of Tennant et al (2019) on MOOPs</a>, it is crucial to find a core group that is enthusiastic about the topic. Therefore, I am looking for people who are interested in creating the structure of the paper and writing the paper together with me. I am also looking for people who want to search for and review literature or evaluate the literature I have already found. Together with the interested persons I would then define, the rules for the project (cf. Tennant et al. 2019). So if you are interested to contribute to the further search for articles and / or to enhance the interpretation and writing of results, please get in touch. For everyone interested to contribute, the list of articles collected so far is freely accessible at Zotero: <a href="https://www.zotero.org/groups/2359061/teaching_open_science">https://www.zotero.org/groups/2359061/teaching_open_science</a>. The figure shown below provides a first overview of my ongoing work. I created the figure with the free software <a href="https://www.yworks.com/products/yed">yEd</a> and uploaded the file to zenodo, so everyone can download and work with it:</p>
<p>To make transparent what I have done so far, I will first introduce what a systematic literature review is. Secondly, I describe the decisions I made to start with the systematic literature review. Third, I present the preliminary results.</p>
<p><strong>Systematic literature review – an Introduction </strong></p>
<p>Systematic literature reviews “are a method of mapping out areas of uncertainty, and identifying where little or no relevant research has been done.” (Petticrew/Roberts 2008: 2). Fink defines the systematic literature review as a “systemic, explicit, and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars, and practitioners.” (Fink 2019: 6). The aim of a systematic literature reviews is to surpass the subjectivity of a researchers’ search for literature. However, there can never be an objective selection of articles. This is because the researcher has for example already made a preselection by deciding about search strings, for example “Teaching Open Science”. In this respect, transparency is the core criteria for a high-quality review. </p>
<p>In order to achieve high quality and transparency, Fink (2019: 6-7) proposes the following seven steps:</p>
<ol>
<li>Selecting a research question.</li>
<li>Selecting the bibliographic database.</li>
<li>Choosing the search terms.</li>
<li>Applying practical screening criteria.</li>
<li>Applying methodological screening criteria.</li>
<li>Doing the review.</li>
<li>Synthesizing the results.</li>
</ol>
<p>I have adapted these steps for the “Teaching Open Science” systematic literature review. In the following, I will present the decisions I have made.</p>
<p><strong>Systematic literature review – decisions I made</strong></p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Research question</strong>: I am interested in the following research questions: How is Open Science taught in higher education? Is Open Science taught in its full range with all aspects like Open Access, Open Data, Open Methodology, Open Science Evaluation and Open Science Tools? Which aspects are taught? Are there disciplinary differences as to which aspects are taught and, if so, why are there such differences?</li>
<li><strong>Databases</strong>: I started my search at the <a href="https://doaj.org/">Directory of Open Science (DOAJ)</a>. “DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.” (https://doaj.org/) Secondly, I used the <a href="http://base-search.net">Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (base)</a>. Base is operated by Bielefeld University Library and “one of the world’s most voluminous search engines especially for academic web resources” (base-search.net). Both platforms are non-commercial and focus on Open Access publications and thus differ from the commercial publication databases, such as Web of Science and Scopus. For this project, I deliberately decided against commercial providers and the restriction of search in indexed journals. Thus, because my explicit aim was to find articles that are open in the context of Open Science.</li>
<li><strong>Search terms</strong>: To identify articles about teaching Open Science I used the following search strings: “teaching open science” OR teaching “open science” OR teach „open science“. The topic search looked for the search strings in title, abstract and keywords of articles. Since these are very narrow search terms, I decided to broaden the method. I searched in the reference lists of all articles that appear from this search for further relevant literature. Using Google Scholar I checked which other authors cited the articles in the sample. If the so checked articles met my methodological criteria, I included them in the sample and looked through the reference lists and citations at Google Scholar. This process has not yet been completed.</li>
<li><strong>Practical screening criteria</strong>: I have included English and German articles in the sample, as I speak these languages (articles in other languages are very welcome, if there are people who can interpret them!). In the sample only journal articles, articles in edited volumes, working papers and conference papers from proceedings were included. I checked whether the journals were predatory journals – such articles were not included. I did not include blogposts, books or articles from newspapers. I only included articles that fulltexts are accessible via my institution (University of Kassel). As a result, recently published articles at Elsevier could not be included because of the special situation in Germany regarding the Project DEAL (https://www.projekt-deal.de/about-deal/). For articles that are not freely accessible, I have checked whether there is an accessible version in a repository or whether preprint is available. If this was not the case, the article was not included. I started the analysis in May 2019.</li>
<li><strong>Methodological criteria</strong>: The method described above to check the reference lists has the problem of subjectivity. Therefore, I hope that other people will be interested in this project and evaluate my decisions. I have used the following criteria as the basis for my decisions: First, the articles must focus on teaching. For example, this means that articles must describe how a course was designed and carried out. Second, at least one aspect of Open Science has to be addressed. The aspects can be very diverse (FOSS, repositories, wiki, data management, etc.) but have to comply with the principles of openness. This means, for example, I included an article when it deals with the use of FOSS in class and addresses the aspects of openness of FOSS. I did not include articles when the authors describe the use of a particular free and open source software for teaching but did not address the principles of openness or re-use.</li>
<li><strong>Doing the review</strong>: Due to the methodical approach of going through the reference lists, it is possible to create a map of how the articles relate to each other. This results in thematic clusters and connections between clusters. The starting point for the map were four articles (Cook et al. 2018; Marsden, Thompson, and Plonsky 2017; Petras et al. 2015; Toelch and Ostwald 2018) that I found using the databases and criteria described above. I used yEd to generate the network. „<strong>yEd</strong> is a powerful desktop application that can be used to quickly and effectively generate high-quality diagrams.” (<a href="https://www.yworks.com/products/yed">https://www.yworks.com/products/yed</a>) In the network, arrows show, which articles are cited in an article and which articles are cited by others as well. In addition, I made an initial rough classification of the content using colours. This classification is based on the contents mentioned in the articles’ title and abstract. This rough content classification requires a more exact, i.e., content-based subdivision and evaluation by others, who are experts in the respective fields/disciplines.</li>
</ol>
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
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
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
Author Under Sail The Imagination of Jack London, 1893-1902
No full textIn Author Under Sail, Jay Williams offers the first complete literary biography of Jack London as a professional writer engaged in the labor of writing. It examines the authorial imagination in London's work, the use of imagination in both his fiction and nonfiction, and the ways he defined imagination in the creative process in his business dealings with his publishers, editors, and agents. In this first volume of a two-volume biography, Williams traverses the years 1893 to 1902, from London's "Story of a Typhoon" to The People of the Abyss. The Jack London who emerges in the pages of Author Under Sail is a writer whose partnership with publishers, most notably his productive alliance with George Brett of Macmillan, was one of the most formative in American literary history. London pioneered many author models during the heyday of realism and naturalism, blurring the boundaries of these popular genres by focusing on absorption and theatricality and the representation of the seen and unseen. London created an impassioned, sincere, and extremely personal realism unlike that of other American writers of the time. Author Under Sail is a literary tour de force that reveals the full range of London as writer, creative citizen, and entrepreneur at the same time it sheds light on the maverick side of machine-age literature.Intro -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. Spirit Truth -- 2. From Absorption to Theatricality and Back Again -- 3. "I Will Build a New Present" -- 4. Sons as Authors -- 5. Fathers as Publishers -- 6. The Daughter as Author -- 7. Lovers as Authors -- 8. At Sea with the Family -- 9. Yellow News, Yellow Stories -- 10. The Return Home -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index -- About Jay WilliamsIn Author Under Sail, Jay Williams offers the first complete literary biography of Jack London as a professional writer engaged in the labor of writing. It examines the authorial imagination in London's work, the use of imagination in both his fiction and nonfiction, and the ways he defined imagination in the creative process in his business dealings with his publishers, editors, and agents. In this first volume of a two-volume biography, Williams traverses the years 1893 to 1902, from London's "Story of a Typhoon" to The People of the Abyss. The Jack London who emerges in the pages of Author Under Sail is a writer whose partnership with publishers, most notably his productive alliance with George Brett of Macmillan, was one of the most formative in American literary history. London pioneered many author models during the heyday of realism and naturalism, blurring the boundaries of these popular genres by focusing on absorption and theatricality and the representation of the seen and unseen. London created an impassioned, sincere, and extremely personal realism unlike that of other American writers of the time. Author Under Sail is a literary tour de force that reveals the full range of London as writer, creative citizen, and entrepreneur at the same time it sheds light on the maverick side of machine-age literature.Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, YYYY. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries
- …
