Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 8 of 8 items for

  • Author or Editor: Anna Lee x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search

Abstract  

Simonton"s (1997) model of creative productivity, based on a blind variation-selection process, predicts scientific impact can only be evaluated retrospectively, after recognition has been achieved. We test this hypothesis using bibliometric data from the Human Factors journal, which gives an award for the best paper published each year. If Simonton"s model is correct, award winning papers would not be cited much more frequently than non-award winning papers, showing that scientific success cannot be judged prospectively. The results generally confirm Simonton"s model. Receipt of the award increases the citation rate of articles, but accounts for only 0.8% to 1.2% of the variance in the citation rate. Consistent with Simonton"s model, the influence of the award on citation rate may reflect a selection process of an elite group of reviewers who are representative of the larger peer group that eventually determines the citation rate of the article. Consistent with Simonton"s model, author productivity accounts for far more variance in the authors" total citation rate (58.9%) and in the citation rate of the authors" most cited article (12.6%) than does award receipt.

Restricted access
Scientometrics
Authors: Nicole Altvater-Mackensen, Gregor Balicki, Lucie Bestakowa, Bianca Bocatius, Johannes Braun, Lars Brehmer, Verena Brune, Kirstina Eigemeier, Füsun Erdem, Ralf Fritscher, Anne Jacobs, Bernd Klingsporn, Marcin Kosinski, Julia Kuntze, Ju-Ra Lee, Anna Osterhage, Martin Probost, Thorsten Risch, Tobias Schmitt, Wolfgang G. Stock, Anja Sturm, Katrin Weller, and Kerstin Werner

Summary We operationalize scientific output in a region by means of the number of articles (as in the SciSearch database) per year and technology output by means of the number of patent applications (as in the database of the European Patent Office) per priority year. All informetric analyses were done using the DIALOG online-system. The main research questions are the following: Which scientific and technological fields or topics are most influent within a region and which institutions or companies are mainly publishing articles or holding patents? Do the distributions of regional science and technology fields and of publishing institutions follow the well-known informetric function? Are there - as it is expected - only few fields and few institutions which dominate the region? Is there a connection between the economic power of a region and the regional publication and patent output? Examples studied in detail are seven German regions: Aachen, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Köln (Cologne), Leipzig - Halle - Dessau, München (Munich), and Stuttgart. Three different indicators were used, science and technology attraction of a region (number of scientific articles and patents), science and technology intensity (articles and patents per 1,000 inhabitants), and science and technology density (articles and patents per 1 billion EURO gross value added). Top region concerning both attraction and intensity is Munich, concerning density it is Aachen.

Restricted access

Including gaming disorder in the ICD-11: The need to do so from a clinical and public health perspective

Commentary on: A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution (van Rooij et al., 2018)

Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Authors: Hans-Jürgen Rumpf, Sophia Achab, Joël Billieux, Henrietta Bowden-Jones, Natacha Carragher, Zsolt Demetrovics, Susumu Higuchi, Daniel L. King, Karl Mann, Marc Potenza, John B. Saunders, Max Abbott, Atul Ambekar, Osman Tolga Aricak, Sawitri Assanangkornchai, Norharlina Bahar, Guilherme Borges, Matthias Brand, Elda Mei-Lo Chan, Thomas Chung, Jeff Derevensky, Ahmad El Kashef, Michael Farrell, Naomi A. Fineberg, Claudia Gandin, Douglas A. Gentile, Mark D. Griffiths, Anna E. Goudriaan, Marie Grall-Bronnec, Wei Hao, David C. Hodgins, Patrick Ip, Orsolya Király, Hae Kook Lee, Daria Kuss, Jeroen S. Lemmens, Jiang Long, Olatz Lopez-Fernandez, Satoko Mihara, Nancy M. Petry, Halley M. Pontes, Afarin Rahimi-Movaghar, Florian Rehbein, Jürgen Rehm, Emanuele Scafato, Manoi Sharma, Daniel Spritzer, Dan J. Stein, Philip Tam, Aviv Weinstein, Hans-Ulrich Wittchen, Klaus Wölfling, Daniele Zullino, and Vladimir Poznyak

The proposed introduction of gaming disorder (GD) in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) has led to a lively debate over the past year. Besides the broad support for the decision in the academic press, a recent publication by van Rooij et al. (2018) repeated the criticism raised against the inclusion of GD in ICD-11 by Aarseth et al. (2017). We argue that this group of researchers fails to recognize the clinical and public health considerations, which support the WHO perspective. It is important to recognize a range of biases that may influence this debate; in particular, the gaming industry may wish to diminish its responsibility by claiming that GD is not a public health problem, a position which maybe supported by arguments from scholars based in media psychology, computer games research, communication science, and related disciplines. However, just as with any other disease or disorder in the ICD-11, the decision whether or not to include GD is based on clinical evidence and public health needs. Therefore, we reiterate our conclusion that including GD reflects the essence of the ICD and will facilitate treatment and prevention for those who need it.

Open access