1,720,959 research outputs found
6. Let a Thousand ORCIDs Bloom: Introducing the ORCID Identifier at Imperial College London
No full textORCID, the Open Researcher and Contributor ID, has found rapid uptake in the global scholarly community. Over a million authors are now registered and research funders, publishers and academic institutions are joining ORCID as members. This paper will introduce the audience to ORCID, its role in scholarly communication and research information management, and describe the experience of introducing ORCID at a research intensive university – Imperial College London.
ORCID is a not-for profit membership organisation that aims to change the way scholarly outputs are associated with authors. ORCID addresses the problem that it is frequently difficult to reliably identify an author by name. Not only do many researchers share the same name, often even in the same institution, but names can also change or are inconsistently abbreviated or misspelled. ORCID provides a unique identifier that can be used to claim authorship of a publication, data sets or other outputs such as software.
Authors benefit by increased visibility, but also through systems integration. Symplectic Elements, the system Imperial scholars use to record their outputs, can automatically claim publications when it detects a matching ORCID in the metadata. In the future, authors may no longer have to submit publication lists to funders – when relevant systems support ORCID providing the personal identifier may be enough. ORCID could also help meeting funders’ Open Access requirements, for example for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework, which requires the deposit of articles on acceptance for publication. Using ORCID, publishers could share metadata or even accepted manuscripts with the host institutions of the authors – identified through their iD. This would reduce the burden on authors and help universities to support the process and monitor compliance.
To support the academic community at Imperial and to advance the uptake of ORCID in general, Imperial College has set up a project to provide all academic staff with an iD. This was achieved in December 2014 and within less than two months some 1,200 researchers linked their iD back to Symplectic Elements. This paper will discuss ORCID in the global scholarly publication system, report on the results of the Imperial College project and outline future opportunities – in particular, how ORCID could help meeting open access requirements of the post-2014 REF.</p
When does diversity trump ability (and vice versa) in group decision making? A simulation study.
Full text linkIt is often unclear which factor plays a more critical role in determining a group's performance: the diversity among members of the group or their individual abilities. In this study, we addressed this "diversity vs. ability" issue in a decision-making task. We conducted three simulation studies in which we manipulated agents' individual ability (or accuracy, in the context of our investigation) and group diversity by varying (1) the heuristics agents used to search task-relevant information (i.e., cues); (2) the size of their groups; (3) how much they had learned about a good cue search order; and (4) the magnitude of errors in the information they searched. In each study, we found that a manipulation reducing agents' individual accuracy simultaneously increased their group's diversity, leading to a conflict between the two. These conflicts enabled us to identify certain conditions under which diversity trumps individual accuracy, and vice versa. Specifically, we found that individual accuracy is more important in task environments in which cues differ greatly in the quality of their information, and diversity matters more when such differences are relatively small. Changing the size of a group and the amount of learning by an agent had a limited impact on this general effect of task environment. Furthermore, we found that a group achieves its highest accuracy when there is an intermediate amount of errors in the cue information, regardless of the environment and the heuristic used, an effect that we believe has not been previously reported and warrants further investigation
UK Scholarly Communications, Licence and Model Policy
No full textUK Scholarly Communications, Licence and Model Polic
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
Results from Study 2: individual learning.
No full text<p>Because the results in the MD and ND environments were similar to the results in the LD and SD environments, respectively, only results from the LD and SD environments are shown for the sake of brevity. Group size was 5 for all groups from which the results were derived, and the amount of learning was measured by the number of options in a learning sample. The lines for minimalist agents and groups are flat because no learning was assumed to take place for a minimalist agent in this set of simulations. Pop: Population. MIN-Group and MIN-Ind.: Minimalist group and individual agents. TTB-Group and TTB-Ind.: Take-the-best group and individual agents.</p
Results from Study 1: group size.
No full text<p>Note that there was no effect of group size on a take-the-best (TTB) group's performance in this set of simulations, because the group was assumed to be totally homogeneous. MIN-1, MIN-5, MIN-15, and MIN-100 stand for a minimalist group with 1, 5, 15, and 100 agents, respectively. Environments differed in their distribution of cue validities: LD, large difference; MD, medium difference; SD, small difference; ND, no difference. PC: Percentage correct.</p
The Linear Coefficients (β) and Validities (<i>V</i>) of the Five Cues in Four Task Environments.
No full text<p>The Linear Coefficients (β) and Validities (<i>V</i>) of the Five Cues in Four Task Environments.</p
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
Results from Study 3: information errors.
No full text<p>Because the results in the MD and ND environments were similar to the results in the LD and SD environments, respectively, only results from the LD and SD environments are shown for the sake of brevity. Group size was 5 for all groups from which the results were derived, and the magnitude of error was measured as the standard deviation of a normal distribution from which the random errors were generated. MIN-Group and MIN-Ind.: Minimalist group and individual agents. TTB-Group and TTB-Ind.: Take-the-best group and individual agents.</p
- …
