1,720,985 research outputs found
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
Improvement Doctrines
No full textWhen one party makes significant but unauthorized improvements to another\u27s land, chattels or informational assets, should the improving nature of the act alter the liability or remedy calculus? Traditional property law has long had to resolve conflicts that arise when one person improves another\u27s land or chattels without permission -- for example, if A cuts down B\u27s trees and fashions a chair, or A erects a building on B\u27s land. Ordinarily, A would be liable and subject to an injunction because B has a strict right to exclude that is protected by a property rule. But various doctrines in traditional property law, like the doctrines of accession, mistaken improvers of land, and ameliorative waste, make exceptions for improvers. These doctrines either excuse the improver from liability or mandate a remedy more hospitable to the improver. I refer to these assorted rules as improvement doctrines and articulate a multi-part framework for understanding the equity and efficiency concerns animating them. In so doing, this article challenges the presumption that property law unwaveringly favors strict exclusive rights for owners -- a presumption that is often invoked by those advocating strict exclusive rights for intellectual property owners. This article demonstrates that unlike property law, intellectual property law has been less receptive to improvement doctrines. This is surprising given intellectual property\u27s normative commitment to progress and innovation. Patented inventions and copyrighted expressive works often build on what came before. While patent law\u27s “reverse doctrine of equivalents” and copyright\u27s “fair use” doctrine may provide relief for unauthorized improvers in certain cases, these intellectual property doctrines are often indifferent to improvement. Given the uncertainty of intellectual property boundaries and the societal consequences of deterring improvement, the concerns motivating traditional property\u27s improvement doctrines apply with even greater force to intellectual property. Accordingly, this article suggests potential areas of reform in patent and copyright law to enhance and regularize judicial consideration of unauthorized improvement at the liability and remedies stages
Billboards and Big Utilities: Borrowing Land-Use Concepts To Regulate "Nonconforming" Sources Under the Clean Air Act
No full textRecommended from our members
Trade Secrecy Injunctions, Disclosure Risks, and \u3ci\u3eeBay\u3c/i\u3e\u27s Influence
No full textHistorically, intellectual property (IP) owners could rely on injunctive remedies to prevent continued infringement. The Supreme Court\u27s eBay v. MercExchange decision changed this, however. After eBay, patent courts no longer apply pre-sumptions that push the deliberative scales in favor of injunctions (or “property rule” protection). Instead, patent injunctions require a careful four-factor analysis, where plaintiffs must demonstrate irreparable injury (i.e., that money damages cannot compensate). Without question, eBay has made it harder for patent plaintiffs to secure injunctions, and has led many district courts to consider innovation policy concerns (e.g., the strategic behavior of patent “troll” plaintiffs) in the injunction calculus. By and large, courts\u27 more deliberative approach to patent injunctions post-eBay has been viewed as beneficial for the patent system. Over the past decade, eBay\u27s influence has migrated to other areas of IP. This article offers the first account of eBay\u27s impact on federal trade secrecy injunctions. Important differences between trade secret law and other areas of IP--for example, the hard-to-quantify risk that disclosure poses to trade secret owners--has lessened eBay\u27s influence on trade secrecy injunctions. This article argues that disclosure risks justify a bifurcated approach to trade secrecy injunctions. That is, in cases involving the dissemination of trade secrets, courts should presume irreparable injury in the injunction calculus. However, in cases involving the unauthorized use of a trade secret--that is, where a defendant builds upon a plaintiff\u27s trade secret but does not disseminate it--courts should not presume irreparable harm and, instead, should apply the eBay framework. As part of this assessment, courts should consider policy concerns related to cumulative innovation and employee mobility
Tortious Interference and the Law of Contract: The Case for Specific Performance Revisited
Full text linkWhat is the role of contract law in remedying breach? The question of the appropriate legal remedy, specific performance versus money damages, has provided adequate fodder for three decades of debate in the law and economics discourse. In the legal discipline at large, the topic has spurred centuries of debate, as illustrated by Oliver Wendell Holmes\u27s famous line: “The only universal consequence of a legally binding promise is, that the law makes the promisor pay damages if the promised event does not come to pass.” Holmes\u27s approach to contractual remedy would evolve during the latter half of the twentieth century into the “efficient breach” theory, which advocates the remedy of expectation damages upon breach in order to encourage the promisor\u27s breach where the resulting profits to the promisor exceed the loss to the promise. Although this favorite doctrine of law and economics scholars more or less describes the norm in Anglo-American contract law, in which damages are routinely available and specific performance rarely granted, it has met and continues to meet with criticism on a variety of grounds.
Alan Schwartz, in The Case for Specific Performance, argues for the routine availability of the specific performance remedy in the event of breach. His argument centers around two main points. First, he claims that the damages remedy is often undercompensatory. Second, he refutes the claim that making specific performance routinely available will result in efficiency losses or interfere with the liberty interest of promisors. Schwartz\u27s arguments have the potential to shed light on another, closely related cause of action: the tort of interference with contract and business relations. Consider the following scenario: A enters into a contract with B, and a third party, C, who has knowledge of the existing contract, induces breach and receives more or less the same performance that the original promisee would have received. In such a case, the tort of interference allows the promisee to recover damages from a third-party inducer, often in addition to an award of damages from the promisor under a breach-of-contract claim. This has puzzled proponents of efficient-breach theory because it does in the three-party context what is rarely done in the two-party context under contract law: It protects the promisee\u27s contractual right with a property rule. In fact, the inducement tort “implements even broader protection than Promisee\u27s property-rule remedy [i.e., specific performance] against Promisor, for it consists of rights that run in favor of Promisee against the world.” Reconciling this legal remedy with the theory of efficient breach, which encourages the Pareto superior transfer of goods to those who value them most, has proven exceedingly difficult for even its staunchest defenders. Although some legal scholars have addressed this inconsistency by questioning the very legitimacy of the tort of interference with contract, others have tried to resolve the inconsistency in a variety of ways.
Part II of this Note provides an overview of Schwartz\u27s arguments in favor of the routine availability of specific performance. Part III briefly addresses the historical development of the interference tort, focusing specifically on the inducement context. The tort\u27s origins and evolution shed light on its close relationship with the availability and adequacy of contract remedies. Part IV, presents the attempts of various scholars to explain what appear to be the analogous efficiency objectives of the interference tort and contract law, and offer criticisms particular to each framework. Ultimately, the only convincing arguments, as a positive matter, rest on a conception of the interference tort as filling in the gaps of contract law, where traditional remedies are inadequate. But if this is the case, then would it not be more coherent to restructure the system of remedy under contract rather than create this remedy through the back door of tort? Part V suggests that the expansion of the specific-performance remedy for breach of contract, as advocated by Schwartz, provides a potential solution to the doctrinal confusion and controversy surrounding the inducement-tort remedy
- …
