1,721,020 research outputs found
4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research
No full text4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research is jointly published by the Operations Research societies of Belgium (SOGESCI/ BVWB), France (ROADEF) and Italy (AIRO). As its name suggests, this journal is devoted to Operations Research. Any good paper related with Operations Research is therefore of potential interest to the journal. The journal is divided into four different sections of unequal importance.
REGULAR PAPERS. This section is the core of the journal. The aim is to be able to publish good quality papers within a short period of time. We have therefore decided to process all papers in electronic form, and to have an uncommon policy with respect to major revisions: all papers needing a ``major revision'', i.e., a revision that cannot be reasonably expected to be undertaken within two months and/or that is likely to significantly alter the whole paper, are rejected. The refereeing process conforms with the usual standards of academic journals: it involves at least two independent referee reports and the advice of an appropriate area editor.
INVITED SURVEYS. This section is limited to one paper per issue. It consistS of ``state-of-the-art surveys'' written by prominent researchers on invitation by the editors.
INDUSTRY SECTION. This section offers a means of communication between OR practitioners and academics. Papers published in this section consist of case studies, state-of-the-art papers on the applications of OR techniques in industry or reflections on the practice of OR.
PH.D. THESES. We publish abstracts of doctoral dissertations defended in Belgium, France or Italy. These abstracts are published under the responsibility of the supervisor of the work
4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research
No full text4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research is jointly published by the Operations Research societies of Belgium (SOGESCI/ BVWB), France (ROADEF) and Italy (AIRO). As its name suggests, this journal is devoted to Operations Research. Any good paper related with Operations Research is therefore of potential interest to the journal. The journal is divided into four different sections of unequal importance.
REGULAR PAPERS. This section is the core of the journal. The aim is to be able to publish good quality papers within a short period of time. We have therefore decided to process all papers in electronic form, and to have an uncommon policy with respect to major revisions: all papers needing a ``major revision'', i.e., a revision that cannot be reasonably expected to be undertaken within two months and/or that is likely to significantly alter the whole paper, are rejected. The refereeing process conforms with the usual standards of academic journals: it involves at least two independent referee reports and the advice of an appropriate area editor.
INVITED SURVEYS. This section is limited to one paper per issue. It consistS of ``state-of-the-art surveys'' written by prominent researchers on invitation by the editors.
INDUSTRY SECTION. This section offers a means of communication between OR practitioners and academics. Papers published in this section consist of case studies, state-of-the-art papers on the applications of OR techniques in industry or reflections on the practice of OR.
PH.D. THESES. We publish abstracts of doctoral dissertations defended in Belgium, France or Italy. These abstracts are published under the responsibility of the supervisor of the work
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
Eleven surveys in operations research: III
No full textThis volume collects all eleven survey papers that appeared in volumes 7–10 (2009–2011) of the journal 4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research. We briefly introduce the collected surveys and those that were included in the first two volumes of this series
- …
