Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 18 items for :

  • "Co-authorship" x
  • Refine by Access: Content accessible to me x
Clear All

Abstract  

This paper introduces a new approach to detecting scientists’ field mobility by focusing on an author’s self-citation network, and the co-authorships and keywords in self-citing articles. Contrary to much previous literature on self-citations, we will show that author’s self-citation patterns reveal important information on the development and emergence of new research topics over time. More specifically, we will discuss self-citations as a means to detect scientists’ field mobility. We introduce a network based definition of field mobility, using the Optimal Percolation Method (Lambiotte & Ausloos, 2005; 2006). The results of the study can be extended to selfcitation networks of groups of authors and, generally also for other types of networks.

Open access

Abstract

I propose a new method (Pareto weights) to objectively attribute citations to co-authors. Previous methods either profess ignorance about the seniority of co-authors (egalitarian weights) or are based in an ad hoc way on the order of authors (rank weights). Pareto weights are based on the respective citation records of the co-authors. Pareto weights are proportional to the probability of observing the number of citations obtained. Assuming a Pareto distribution, such weights can be computed with a simple, closed-form equation but require a few iterations and data on a scholar, her co-authors, and her co-authors’ co-authors. The use of Pareto weights is illustrated with a group of prominent economists. In this case, Pareto weights are very different from rank weights. Pareto weights are more similar to egalitarian weights but can deviate up to a quarter in either direction (for reasons that are intuitive).

Open access

Hét lehetséges kutatás a társadalomtudomány működéséről

Seven Potential Researches about the Social Sciences

Educatio
Author:
Péter Tibor Nagy

Összefoglaló. A tanulmány a szerző Négy lehetséges kutatás a felsőoktatókról, című 2007-es írását továbbgondolva háromféle forrásra, s az ezek közötti három különböző fajta kapcsolatokra építő kutatási tervet vázol fel. Az egyik kutatás a pozíciók (bírálati, vezető, beosztotti pozíciók) elemzését végezné el. A másik kutatás a multipozicionalitás hatásait vizsgálja, megkülönböztetve a munkahelyen belüli nem tudományos, munkahelyen kívüli nem tudományos és munkahelyen kívüli tudományos pozíciókat. A harmadik kutatás a folyóiratok világát elemezné, ahogy a többi esetben is megkülönböztetve a folyóiratok irányítását, a folyóiratok publikációra használását, a manifeszt vitát, a lektori aktivitást és a tematikus számok szerkesztését. A „reflexiók” blokkban az idézetek és a kritikák fő funkciójáról a szerző tudományos térben történő pozícionálásáról folytatnánk kutatást. A társszerzőségre vonatkozó kutatás indítóhipotézise szerint három fő motivációja lehet ennek: közös munka, szövetségi viszony és mester-tanítvány viszony kifejezése. A civil szervezeteket, tudományos társaságokat a folyóiratokhoz hasonló módon az irányítók és egyszerű tagként használók kettősségében írjuk le, de itt szerepet kap a írásos világ ellenőrizhetőségétől különböző szóbeliség világa, mely egy külső körnek is utat nyit. A hatalmi erőkifejtés tudományos termeléshez közvetlenül nem kapcsolódó fajtái a pénzosztás, díjak osztása és az adatok birtoklása.

Summary. Continuing the author’s 2007 Educatio paper Four Possible Researches on Academic Staff, the study outlines a research plan based on three sources and three different types of relationships between them. The first research would analyzed the positions (exeminer, leader, employed positions). The second research examines the effects of multipositionality, distinguishing the non-scientific positions within academic workplace, non-scientific positions outside academic workplace, scientific positions outside academic workplace The third research would analyze the world of journals, as in the other cases, distinguishing between the management of journals, the use of journals for publication, the manifesto debate, the lectorship activity, and the editing of thematic issues. In the “reflections” block, we would conduct research on the main function of quotations and critiques on positioning the author in the scientific space. According to the initial hypothesis of co-authorship, there may be three main motivations for this: working together, expressing a covenant relationship, and expressing a master-student relationship. In the chapter of „civil societies” we describe scientific societies in the duality of managers and simple „users”, but – contrary to the world of journals – here the non controlled oralism of conferences plays a role, which also opens the way for an outside circle. Types of power effort not directly related to scientific production are the distribution of money, the sharing of medals, and the control over data.

Open access

under observation such as international co-authorships tends to grow anyway, and an understanding of possible marginal gains are useful to detect net advantages. This research design considers EU04 countries those that went under a “treatment”; other

Open access

activities, driven by collaboration between researchers and between research institutes and universities, in particular international co-authoring and citation networks [ 31 ]. Overall, co-authorship and citation networks can also be defined as social

Open access
Scientometrics
Authors:
Thomas Gurney
,
Edwin Horlings
, and
Peter van den Besselaar

-data fields. The fields they used include co-authorships, affiliation addresses, citation relationships, title words, interval in years between publications, author country, citation and co-citation relationships. Data selection and

Open access

create a database from which the corpus could be used to explore the journal's themes, main subject areas and author correlations (gender, origin, co-authorship, affiliation). A further aim was to organise the material of these 11 years into a repertory

Open access

necessarily authors), with 404 author names (8.92%) connected to more publications than one. This is not surprising since the time span of our analysis is very limited whilst several months are needed for processing an article. The network of co-authorship

Open access

current year (contemporary h -index), reducing the effects of co-authorship (individual h -index), and adjusting the number of citations by the age of each publication (age-weighted citation rate). Some scholars posit that these metrics are complementary

Open access

for the relationship can be built with co-authorship as the pathway to the academic life. Consequently, there are four things that a doctoral student needs: Brain, passion, selfishness, and a good supervisor. The first three are under the

Open access