Search

The increasing presence of e-books (electronic books) has become a major focus in countries around the world. In the United States, e-books represented 28% of the total book sales for 2012. In Japan, the conversion from paper books to e-books is expected to accelerate by the prevalent use of smartphones and tablet PCs. It is therefore important to quantitatively evaluate the environmental load of paper books and e-books for a sustainable society. In this study, paper books are compared to e-books read on different electronic devices (e-ink tablets, tablets, cell phones, smartphones, laptop computers, desktop computers and portable music players) through a case study on a 224-page book. The study is based on key primary data such as use time and reading speed for each device and aims to minimize assumptions made in other studies. GHG emissions for paper books are 1.24 kg-CO2e/book, and are reduced to 1.11 kg-CO2e/book when the effect of paper recycling is taken into consideration. The results for e-books under average use-time conditions range from 0.25 to 0.91 kg-CO2e/book with the e-ink tablet having the lowest emissions. When the average use time of each e-book device is applied, the paper book has a higher impact than all the e-books. However, sensitivity analysis shows that the impact of paper books can be lower than that of e-books for larger screen devices such as tablets, laptops and desktops when the reuse of books is considered or the e-book reading device is hardly used during its life cycle.

Citation prediction of scholarly papers is of great significance in guiding funding allocations, recruitment decisions, and rewards. However, little is known about how citation patterns evolve over time. By exploring the inherent involution property in scholarly paper citation, we introduce the Paper Potential Index (PPI) model based on four factors: inherent quality of scholarly paper, scholarly paper impact decaying over time, early citations, and early citers' impact. In addition, by analyzing factors that drive citation growth, we propose a multi-feature model for impact prediction. Experimental results demonstrate that the two models improve the accuracy in predicting scholarly paper citations. Compared to the multi-feature model, the PPI model yields superior predictive performance in terms of range-normalized RMSE. The PPI model better interprets the changes in citation, without the need to adjust parameters. Compared to the PPI model, the multi-feature model performs better prediction in terms of Mean Absolute Percentage Error and Accuracy; however, their predictive performance is more dependent on the parameter adjustment Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Context: According to the search reported in this paper, as of this writing (May 2015), a very large number of papers (more than 70,000) have been published in the area of Software Engineering (SE) since its inception in 1968. Citations are crucial in any research area to position the work and to build on the work of others. Identification and characterization of highly-cited papers are common and are regularly reported in various disciplines. Objective: The objective of this study is to identify the papers in the area of SE that have influenced others the most as measured by citation count. Studying highly-cited SE papers helps researchers to see the type of approaches and research methods presented and applied in such papers, so as to be able to learn from them to write higher quality papers which will likely receive high citations. Method: To achieve the above objective, we conducted a study, comprised of five research questions, to identify and classify the top-100 highly-cited SE papers in terms of two metrics: total number of citations and average annual number of citations. Results: By total number of citations, the top paper is "A metrics suite for object-oriented design", cited 1,817 times and published in 1994. By average annual number of citations, the top paper is "QoS-aware middleware for Web services composition", cited 154.2 times on average annually and published in 2004. Conclusion: It is concluded that it is important to identify the highly-cited SE papers and also to characterize the overall citation landscape in the SE field. We hope that this paper will encourage further discussions in the SE community towards further analysis and formal characterization of the highly-cited SE papers., Vahid Garousi was partially supported by several internal grants provided by the Hacettepe University. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

From the past half of a century, identification of the relevant documents is deemed an active area of research due to the rapid increase of data on the web. The traditional models to retrieve relevant documents are based on bibliographic information such as Bibliographic coupling, Co-citations, and Direct citations. However, in the recent past, the scientific community has started to employ textual features to improve existing models’ accuracy. In our previous study, we found that analysis of citations at a deep level (i.e., content level) can play a paramount role in finding more relevant documents than surface level (i.e., just bibliography details). We found that cited and citing papers have a high degree of relevancy when in-text citations frequency of the cited paper is more than five times in the citing paper’s text. This paper is an extension of our previous study in terms of its evaluation of a comprehensive dataset. Moreover, the study results are also compared with other state-of-the-art approaches i.e., content, metadata, and bibliography. For evaluation, a user study is conducted on selected papers from 1,200 documents (comprise about 16,000 references) of an online journal, Journal of Computer Science (J.UCS). The evaluation results indicate that in-text citation frequency has attained higher precision in finding relevant papers than other state-of-the-art techniques such as content, bibliographic coupling, and metadata-based techniques. The use of in-text citation may help in enhancing the quality of existing information systems and digital libraries. Further, more sophisticated measure may be redefined be considering the use of in-text citations.

This paper takes a fresh look at citation counts and publications in top-rank journals, which the academic economics profession uses to evaluate and promote its members. It first examines how and why citations are mentioned in an article, and what this implies about their counts. The discussion then examines how average citation counts to articles are used to rank journals, and the paper reviews the concerns that have been expressed about this practice. These concerns identify the large variance in citation counts among articles of the same journal, implying that those articles themselves must vary greatly in quality (Engemann and Wall 2009). To address these concerns, the paper proposes the classification of citations into three categories: Fodder Citations (for references that contribute only trivially to a paper), Relevant Citations (which substantively contribute to the paper, though the paper would remain roughly the same without them), and Essential Citations (which have a major influence). The paper argues that counts of citations by the last two categories offers greater credibility in the application of citation counts to evaluate economic literature. Finally, the paper provides an opportunity for economists to participate in a new project that solicits information on citations by these categories.

In China, HSS master students are becoming the main target of Chinese-language predatory journals. Existing research has not paid attention to why the HSS master students publish papers in Chinese-language predatory journals. This research interviewed 13 HSS (Humanities and Social Sciences) master students with different majors using the semi-structured interview method, then used GT to analyze the data and found that research discrimination, research context, self-awareness and individual demand are the main reasons why HSS master students publish papers in Chinese-language predatory journals. This research suggests that universities, colleges, and research institutions establish mechanisms for evaluating the quality of researcher’s papers, and no longer value the number of papers.

The number of papers, published in different fields, is continually increasing, but the quality of papers varies widely. Scholars evaluate the quality and influence of a paper by the number of times the paper was cited, but the result of this citation quantity method is not accurate enough especially for new papers. Our society needs an accurate, objective and fair evaluation of papers. To address these problems, this article presents a method for evaluating the impact of papers. We analyze the influence of each academic paper in the citation network based on the improved PageRank algorithm and combined with the personal influence of the authors and the published date. Thus, this method tends to select high-quality authors and high-quality citations as high-impact papers. The comparison results showed that our method outperformed the traditional method of citation number and PageRank algorithm.

In our planned study, we shall empirically study the assessment of cited papers within the framework of the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. We are interested in the question whether citation decisions are (mainly) driven by the quality of cited references. The design of our study is oriented towards the study by Teplitskiy, Duede [10]. We shall undertake a survey of corresponding authors with an available email address in the Web of Science database. The authors are asked to assess the quality of papers that they cited in previous papers. Some authors will be assigned to three treatment groups that receive further information alongside the cited paper: citation information, information on the publishing journal (journal impact factor), or a numerical access code to enter the survey. The control group will not receive any further numerical information. In the statistical analyses, we estimate how (strongly) the quality assessments of the cited papers are adjusted by the respondents to the anchor value (citation, journal, or access code). Thus, we are interested in whether possible adjustments in the assessments can not only be produced by quality-related information (citation or journal), but also by numbers that are not related to quality, i.e. the access code. The results of the study may have important implications for quality assessments of papers by researchers and the role of numbers, citations, and journal metrics in assessment processes.

Our community publishes peer-reviewed journal, magazine, and conference papers and articles sharing a commitment to originality and to quality content and writing. These papers vary in their characteristics and style, depending on their objectives and their targeted readership. The IEEE Publication Services and Products Board (PSPB) Operations Manual (OM) also provides guidelines differentiating these paper types. There is confusion sometimes, however, concerning the features of magazine papers in particular. Some authors, especially early-career authors, do not fully appreciate certain differences between magazine papers and their journal, transaction, and letter counterparts. This can create a challenge for magazine editors and may result in delay, or rejection, of papers that could have been accepted if written with a better understanding of what magazines are about. We focus our attention here on this issue as it applies to IEEE Communications Magazine (ComMag) in particular. Our goal is to help our new and/or young authors who want to publish in ComMag to customize their writing to the nature of this magazine and enable them to author papers with higher chances of acceptance.

The purposes of this study were to examine the extent to which literature was used to discuss findings in selected papers from Zimbabwe Journal, and to compare the quality of reviews in this journal with other international journals. The study was largely qualitative in nature and used convenient sampling. In the study, the Zimbabwe Journal was chosen because of easy access. Three papers were conveniently selected based on personal interest and areas previously studied. Content analysis was used to compare the quality of discussion of literature in the sampled papers. Findings suggest that authors cite relevant literature extensively in the background to the study but use the same literature sparingly in the discussion of their results. Further, in the discussion of findings, the use of literature was limited to confirming what was already known, and does not show how the new studies reported contribute to knowledge. The study concluded that the journal studied was failing to attract authors who write high quality papers. Perhaps the journal should broaden its brief and target an international audience, because at present as evident in the three cases cited, the journal can only reach out to practitioners within (Southern) Africa. Key words: Literature review, information and communications technology (ICT), mentoring, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

This paper presents a novel method for finding features in the analysis of variable distributions stemming from time series. We apply the methodology to the case of submitted and accepted papers in peer-reviewed journals. We provide a comparative study of editorial decisions for papers submitted to two peer-reviewed journals: the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society (JSCS) and this MDPI Entropy journal. We cover three recent years for which the fate of submitted papers&mdash, about 600 papers to JSCS and 2500 to Entropy&mdash, is completely determined. Instead of comparing the number distributions of these papers as a function of time with respect to a uniform distribution, we analyze the relevant probabilities, from which we derive the information entropy. It is argued that such probabilities are indeed more relevant for authors than the actual number of submissions. We tie this entropy analysis to the so called diversity of the variable distributions. Furthermore, we emphasize the correspondence between the entropy and the diversity with inequality measures, like the Herfindahl-Hirschman index and the Theil index, itself being in the class of entropy measures, the Gini coefficient which also measures the diversity in ranking is calculated for further discussion. In this sample, the seasonal aspects of the peer review process are outlined. It is found that the use of such indices, non linear transformations of the data distributions, allow us to distinguish features and evolutions of the peer review process as a function of time as well as comparing the non-uniformity of distributions. Furthermore, t- and z-statistical tests are applied in order to measure the significance (p-level) of the findings, that is, whether papers are more likely to be accepted if they are submitted during a few specific months or during a particular &ldquo, season&rdquo, the predictability strength depends on the journal.

Two propositions are examined with reference to the top 300 papers in economics journals in terms of citations as reported by RePec. The results show that while there is significant correlation between the quality of a journal and the number of top papers published in that journal, the correlation is far away from being perfect. Furthermore, citations are not related to the number of authors, which provides evidence against the proposition that multi-authored papers are typically of higher quality than single-authored papers. The results also cast a shadow of doubt on the soundness of the bucket classification of journals.

International audience; Citation analysis is considered as major and one of the most popular branches of bibliometrics. Citation analysis is based on the assumption that all citations have similar values and weights each equally. Speciï¿¿c research ï¿¿elds like content-based citation analysis (CCA) seeks to explain the "how" and "why" of citation behavior. In this paper we tackle to explain the "how" from a centrality indicator based on factors which are built automatically according to the authors' citation behavior. This indicator allows to evaluate bibliographical references' importance for reading the paper with which user interacts. From objective quantitative measurements, factors are computed in order to characterize the level of granularity where citations are used. By the setting of the centrality indicator's factors we can highlight citations which tend towards a partial or a global construction of the authors' discourse. We carry out a pilot study in which we test our approach on some papers and discuss the challenges in carrying out the citation analysis in this context. Our results show interesting and consistent correlations between the level of granularity and the signiï¿¿cance of citation inï¿¿uences.

Technology driven changings with consecutive increase in the on-line availability and accessibility of journals and papers rapidly changes patterns of academic communication and publishing. The dissemination of important research findings through the academic and scientific community begins with publication in peer-reviewed journals. Aim of this article is to identify, critically evaluate and integrate the findings of relevant, high-quality individual studies addressing the trends of enhancement of visibility and accessibility of academic publishing in digital era. The number of citations a paper receives is often used as a measure of its impact and by extension, of its quality. Many aberrations of the citation practices have been reported in the attempt to increase impact of someone’s paper through manipulation with self-citation, inter-citation and citation cartels. Authors revenues to legally extend visibility, awareness and accessibility of their research outputs with uprising in citation and amplifying measurable personal scientist impact has strongly been enhanced by on line communication tools like networking (LinkedIn, Research Gate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar), sharing (Facebook, Blogs, Twitter, Google Plus) media sharing (Slide Share), data sharing (Dryad Digital Repository, Mendeley database, PubMed, PubChem), code sharing, impact tracking. Publishing in Open Access journals. Many studies and review articles in last decade have examined whether open access articles receive more citations than equivalent subscription toll access) articles and most of them lead to conclusion that there might be high probability that open access articles have the open access citation advantage over generally equivalent payfor-access articles in many, if not most disciplines. But it is still questionable are those never cited papers indeed “Worth(less) papers” and should journal impact factor and number of citations be considered as only suitable indicators to evaluate quality of scientists? “Publish or perish” phrase usually used to describe the pressure in academia to rapidly and continually publish academic work to sustain or further one’s career can now in 21. Century be reformulate into “Publish, be cited and maybe will not Perish”.

While reading documents, people commonly make annotations: they underline or highlight text and write comments in the margin. Making annotations during reading activities has been shown to be an efficient method for aiding understanding and interpretation. In this paper we present a comparison of paper-based and online annotations in the workplace. Online annotations were collected in a laboratory study, making use of the Web-based annotation tool SpreadCrumbs. A field study was out to gather paper-based annotations. The results validate the benefits of Web annotations. A comparison of the online annotations with paper-based annotations provides several insights in user needs for enhanced online annotation tools, from which design guidelines can be drawn.

Widening the draft resources is the key of academic journal of university. To improve the quality and efficiency of university journals' soliciting contributions, a judgment model of highly cited papers in journal of universities was proposed. First, the core elements of high-cited papers were obtained by using the analysis of highly cited papers in China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Secondly, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in operational research was applied to the research on the high-cited papers of college journals, the evaluation model was constructed, and the judgment matrix was established by paired comparison method. The weights of each influencing factor were calculated and finally sorted according to the importance. Finally, through the practice verification of the “Journal of Shenyang Aerospace University” for the past two years, the proposed model has good adaptability and practical effect.

This study seeks to determine the effectiveness of the BiblioBouts information literacy game for improving the quality of the sources undergraduate students cite in their written papers. BiblioBouts was incorporated into a second-year English class of 45 students in which about half played the game from start to finish (i.e., players) and the other half failed to play all or part of the game (i.e., nonplayers). The authors hypothesized that the quality of the sources players cited in their papers would improve as a result of playing BiblioBouts and players would cite more scholarly sources in their final-paper bibliographies than nonplayers. About 90 percent of the sources players’ cited in their in-game bibliographies were scholarly sources. When players transitioned to their final papers, the percentage of scholarly sources they cited in their final papers dropped in half (44.6 percent); however, it surpassed the percentage (35.2 percent) of scholarly sources nonplayers cited in their final papers. The authors suggest that players put scholarly sources into play and cited them in their in-game bibliographies knowing that they would earn high scores for their actions. The authors also raise the question of whether the second-year students in this class and whether underclassmen generally understand scholarly sources well enough to integrate them into their papers. BiblioBouts players benefited in several other ways including being exposed to many more sources than they would have found on their own, becoming familiar with the library portal and its many available databases, and mastering citation management software for saving online sources’ citations and full-texts.

I would like to express my appreciation to the International Journal of Psychoanalysis for organizing a forum where papers written by analysts from one part of the international psychoanalytic comm...

Electronic book(E-book) is a digitalized content which provides online service and digitalized text-based information that has been distributed in the form of Paper-book. E-book has been attracting people's attention in earnest since the Steven King’s novel, ‘Riding the Bullet’ was published as a form of E-book in 2000. Since then, customers have paid attention to E-book, and the scale of E-book market has been growing sharply in Europe, China, Japan and Korea as well as the US. The purpose of this study is for actual analysis how Paper-book and E-book market compete with each other and expand into the world publication market. The relationship between Paper-book and E-book is modeled by the Lotka-Volterra Model designed for competitive relationships and estimate spreading curves. Also, competition patterns between Paper-book and E-book are analyzed by estimating coefficient of curve expression. This study shows the change of customers' demand which has been created since E-book was introduced to the publication market.

Purpose: This paper identifies what business faculty, new PhDs, graduate students, practitioners, and other scholars can do to improve the likelihood of publishing their research in academic journals. Design/methodology/approach: Despite the fact that well educated scholars are generally well informed about management principles and theories, the success rate for obtaining acceptance of papers submitted to academic journals is typically well below 50% -- with some journals rejecting up to 95% of papers submitted. Findings: This paper identifies principles important to writing an academic paper, questions to address to ensure that those papers achieve a high standard, realities that impact the publishing process, and stumbling blocks to overcome to get a publication accepted. Originality/value: This article highlights the overlooked concept of flair factors in the selection process, identifies six factors that are vital for successful employee selection, suggests three tools to improve selection processes, and presents five propositions for practitioners and scholars.

Berkeley Planning Journal, Volume 27, 2014 Call for Papers: Volume 28 Deadline January 10, 2015 The Berkeley Planning journal would like to invite submissions for Volume 28 from all planning and related fields. These fields may include geography, environmental studies, transportation, sociology, political ecology, urban theory, public health, and others. The Berkeley Planning journal is now published annually in an online format and is available in print from Amazon.com. The Berkeley Planning journal focuses on research-based papers and book reviews, but also publishes creative formats such as essays, photo essays, and interviews. Submission guidelines and our online submission system can be accessed at http://ced.berkeley.edu/bpj/submit-to-the- journal/. Each year the Berkeley Planning Journal awards one author the Kaye Bock Student Paper award for an outstanding submission that is accompanied by a $250 cash gift.

The reduction in book reading rates has been alluded to in a number of recent publications examining the impact of technology on the publishing industry (Torr; Melanson). This trend has been reflected in the arena of scholarly journals as well since researchers frequently subscribe to both electronic and print versions but make more use of the electronic access on a daily basis. To explore the impact that the electronic environment has had on publishing, specifically in the area of scholarly journals, it is essential that we begin by clarifying some of the concepts involved. Since electronic publications have had a significant impact on the traditional bibliographic chain this article also discusses a proposed model for electronic information flow. Specific emphasis has been placed on the scholarly journals and this area will be discussed in association with the role of the electronic publisher. Finally the article will explore the status of 'gatekeeper of information' in relation to electronic publication.

SUMMARY Kim White and Sarah Townsend created the End[of] Paper blog while preparing for their panel on “Electronic Book Technologies.” In their blog they discussed innovations in creative-critical works, reference works; mass market publications; electronic textbooks; ephemera; and collaborative constructions. They also discussed issues of preservation; standardization; and literacy. Fittingly, their paper was presented in blog format. Exemplary texts from each category were presented. Links to many of these texts as well as the text of the presentation itself can be found on the blog website “End [of] Paper” http://www.endofpaper.blogspot.com. To accompany your web journey, we are including a bibliography of related electronic resources.

If your research paper is rejected for publication by a peer-reviewed journal, what do you do next? Some editors would suggest that it should not be sent to another journal, yet there are contributors who would just put a ‘failed’ paper straight back in the mail to another journal and trust to luck. I argue that rejection should be a time for reassessment, when the input of the editor(s) and reviewers(s), all experts in their field, should be considered and acted upon as necessary. The revitalized and improved contribution can then be sent to a new journal with confidence. There are, broadly, two kinds of academic research journals: those with a policy of peer review of submissions and those without. The greatest kudos is attached to publication of research papers in the former. Although we all publish in a range of academic forms and forums, such as conference abstracts, book reviews, papers in conference proceedings, invited chapters, and books and monographs (whether written or edited), it is the peer-reviewed journal articles that receive most notice from promotion panels and search committees in many areas of enquiry. Although administrators in research institutions use various metrics to gauge the performance of their staff, the focus in many fields is on publishing research papers in the top journals in the given field, whatever the imperfections of assessing the merit of such publications merely by counting them. 1 This means that the editors of these journals wield considerable power, and it is not too much to say that an

The academic publisher Springer announces that 64 papers are being pulled from 10 journals. The academic publisher Springer announces that 64 papers are being pulled from 10 journals.

Background: Research is published in indexed, online scholarly journals so that published knowledge can be easily found and built upon by others. Most scholars rely on relatively few online indexing service providers to search for relevant scholarly content. It is under-appreciated that the quality of indexing can vary across different journals and that this can have an adverse effect on the quality of research. Objective: In this short paper I compare the recall of commonly used online indexers; Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Microsoft Academic Search and Mendeley Search against a selection of over 20,000 papers published in two different high-volume journals: PLOS ONE and Zootaxa. Results: When using Google Scholar, content in Zootaxa has low recall for search terms that are known to occur in it, significantly lower than the near-perfect recall of the same terms in PLOS ONE. All other indexers tend to have lower recall than Google Scholar except Scopus which outperformed Google Scholar for recall on Zootaxa searches. I also elaborate why Dark Research is undesirable for optimal scientific progress with some recommendations for change. Conclusion: This research is a basic proof-of-concept which demonstrates that when searching for published scholarly content, relevant studies can remain hidden as ’Dark Research’ in poorly-indexed journals, even despite expertise-informed efforts to find the content. The technological capability to do full text indexing on all modern scholarly journal content certainly exists, it is perhaps just publisher-imposed access-restrictions on content that prevents this from happening.

Bibliographies are fundamental components of academic papers and both the scientific research and its evaluation are fundamentally organized around the correct examination and classification of scientific bibliographies. Currently, most digital libraries publish bibliographic information about their content for free, and many include the citations (outgoing and in some cases even incoming) to the papers they manage. Unfortunately no sophistication is spent for these lists: monolithic pieces of text where it is even difficult to tell automatically the authors, the title and publication details, and where users are provided with no mechanisms to filter and access full context of each citation. For instance, there is no way to know in which sentence a work was cited (the citation context) and why (the citation function). In this paper we introduce a novel environment for navigating, filtering and making sense of citations. The interface, called BEX, exploits data freely available in a Link Open Dataset about scholarly papers; end-user testing proved its efficacy and usability.

This paper provides a theoretical model for analyzing the behavior of peer-reviewed journals. It finds that, apart from natural human errors, inefficiencies arise purely for reasons of inter-journal strategic behavior. Specifically, as a result of competition, journals tend to set their quality cut-offs excessively low.

Statistical analysis of various data for the papers published in Journal of Shanghai University (English Edition) from 1997 to 2004 was made. The issues examined include numbers of published papers, disciplinary distribution, constituents of authors, proportions of collaborated papers contributed by multiple authors and papers based on cooperation between different institutions, publishing retardation, and citation of references. Suggestions are made for further improving the quality of the Journal.

The contributors to this discussion were invited to submit comments, each from a different standpoint, on the paper by John Caldwell and Thomas Schindlmayr that appeared in the preceding issue of the journal. The invitation was issued with the approval of these authors, and the journal is grateful to them for allowing their paper to be used to generate debate on the issues they had raised. The discussion is followed by the authors' response to it.

In their recent edited collection, Time Travel in Popular Media: Essays on Film, Television, Literature and Video Games, Matthew Jones and Joan Ormrod have brought together scholars who each use a ...

The different reference styles demanded by journals, both for in-text citations and manuscript bibliographies, require that significant time and attention be paid to minute detail that constitute a tedious obstacle on the road to publication for all authors, but especially for those from resource-limited countries and/or writing in a second language. To illustrate this, we highlight different reference styles requested by five popular journals to which operational research papers are often submitted. We call for a simpler, standardised format for in-text and bibliography reference citations, so that researchers can concentrate on the science and its interpretation rather than fonts and punctuation.

There is no more momentous year in Andrew Jackson's presidency than 1832, the focus of volume 10 of The Papers of Andrew Jackson. Beginning with volume 7, each volume has covered only one calendar ...

Journal editors who publish papers authored by colleagues and former graduate students have been charged with practicing favoritism, with the implication that the papers in question are of lower quality than those written by scholars with no ties to the editor. Using citation analysis, the authors find strong evidence that although journal editors occasionally publish subpar papers authored by colleagues and former graduate students, on balance their use of professional connections enables them to identify and 'capture' high-impact papers for publication. This implies that a practice interpreted as favoritism by many scholars in fact serves to enhance efficiency in the market for scientific knowledge. Copyright 1994 by University of Chicago Press.

If you write a paper that you believe makes a substantial contribution to psychological knowledge, you may want to consider submitting the paper for publication. Your academic adviser or course instructor can give you advice regarding the publishability of your paper, and an appropriate choice of a journal to which to submit the paper. DECIDING UPON A JOURNAL If you decide to submit a paper for publication, the first step you must take is to decide upon a journal to which you want to submit the paper. Seven considerations should enter your decision: 1. Quality . Journals vary widely in quality. Some journals publish papers that do little more than fill up journal space; other journals publish only outstanding contributions to the literature. Better journals generally have higher rejection rates for submitted papers, so that the probability of a paper being accepted in such journals is lower. Your adviser or course instructor can help you match the quality of your paper to an appropriate journal. 2. Content . All journals limit by content the kinds of papers they accept. Journal editors use either or both of two criteria in deciding upon the appropriateness of a paper's content. The first criterion is substantive focus. What is the topic of research? The journal may accept, for example, only developmental, or cognitive, or applied papers. The second criterion is methodological focus. How was the research done? The journal may accept, for example, only experimental, or theoretical, or review papers.

Chuck Tryon's timely book On-Demand Culture: Digital Delivery and the Future of Movies provides a solid industrial overview of on-demand film. Tryon previously wrote on digital film and popular cul...

This article investigates the function of scientific papers in the production of scientific knowledge. For this production, the citations made of these papers in the scientific literature can be considered as economic utilities. The work of the scientist is described as the production of citations by means of citations. The number of citations received by a given paper can be used to measure the paper's formal utility. The formal utility of scientific papers is studied empirically. It is concluded that the references contained in a scientific paper are a major determinant of its future utility.

We have compared the top 25 papers as assessed by download statistics for papers published during 2007 in the International Journal of Cardiology with the top 25 papers as assessed by citations. There was very little overlap with only three papers being in both lists. This indicates very different criteria for seeking to read as opposed to cite recent scientific publications and calls into question the reliability of commonly sued measures quality and/or impact for papers at the individual publication level.

Using data on the B.E. Journals that rank articles into four quality tiers, this paper examines the accuracy of the research evaluation process in economics. We find that submissions by authors with strong publication records and authors affiliated with highly-ranked institutions are significantly more likely to be published in higher tiers. Citation success as measured by RePEc statistics also depends heavily on the overall research records of the authors. Finally and most importantly, we measure how successful the B.E. Journals’ editors and their reviewers have been at assigning articles to quality tiers. While, on average, they are able to distinguish more influential from less influential manuscripts, we also observe many assignments that are not compatible with the belief that research quality is reflected by the number of citations.

This paper describes the basis of citation auctions as a new approach to selecting scientific papers for publication. Our main idea is to use an auction for selecting papers for publication through - differently from the state of the art - bids that consist of the number of citations that a scientist expects to receive if the paper is published. Hence, a citation auction is the selection process itself, and no reviewers are involved. The benefits of the proposed approach are two-fold. First, the cost of refereeing will be either totally eliminated or significantly reduced, because the process of citation auction does not need prior understanding of the paper's content to judge the quality of its contribution. Additionally, the method will not prejudge the content of the paper, so it will increase the openness of publications to new ideas. Second, scientists will be much more committed to the quality of their papers, paying close attention to distributing and explaining their papers in detail to maximize the number of citations that the paper receives. Sample analyses of the number of citations collected in papers published in years 1999-2004 for one journal, and in years 2003-2005 for a series of conferences (in a totally different discipline), via Google scholar, are provided. Finally, a simple simulation of an auction is given to outline the behaviour of the citation auction approach.

International audience; In this paper we review two well-known citation methods to find relatedness between scientific papers: co-citation and bibliographic coupling. We propose a practical method to estimate the co-citation relatedness using the Google search engine. We call this method Web co-citation. We conducted experiments on a collection of scientific papers to compare the performances of different methods. The experimental results show that our approach, despite its simplicity, is efficient in discovering the relatedness between scientific papers.

The style and approach for publishing a scientific paper in a refereed or scholarly journal are presented to guide aspiring authors on procedures for preparing high quality manuscripts. The rigorous demand of peer review has been emphasized to illustrate the academic nature of scholarly publishing. The quality attributes of a manuscript in terms of content, context, syntax and usage of International Systems of Units (SI) are also highlighted. The rules, norms, ethics and standards of publishing in relation to copyrights and plagiarism are discussed. The published paper is recognized as the author's creation whereby recognition and prestige can be accorded, and therefore, the preparation demands personal commitment and devotion. Journal of Applied Science and Technology Vol. 10(1&2) 2005: 3-7

Public Space: the Journal of Law and Social Justice is the new multi-media peer reviewed online journal published by the Faculty of Law of the University of Technology, Sydney and UTS ePress. Our multi-media capability means that contributors can include photographic, video and sound recordings in their text-based contribution or submit a purely image-based or sound-based contribution. Our first two editions can be viewed at http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/publicspace We are now calling for papers for our next two editions due for publication in March 2009 and September 2009. The March edition is “On Art”. The September edition is “W(h)ither Human Rights?""

An author’s first paper is often the most difficult to write. However, the appropriate dissemination of the results, including the presentation of findings for peer review, is an important responsibility of all who conduct research. Key issues include the choice of which journal to submit to, and the determination of co-authorship status. Each facet of the paper (Title, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References, Abstract) requires attention, as does the covering letter to the journal editor.

Contains fulltext : 50268.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) The use of doping substances and methods is extensive not only among elite athletes, but also among amateur and recreational athletes. Many types of drugs are used by athletes to enhance performance, to reduce anxiety, to increase muscle mass, to reduce weight or to mask the use of other drugs during testing. However, the abuse of doping substances and methods has been associated with the occurrence of numerous health side-effects. The adverse effects depend on the type of the consumed drug, as well as the amount and duration of intake and the sensitivity of the body, since there is a large inter-individual variability in responses to a drug. Usually the doses used in sports are much higher than those used for therapeutic purposes and the use of several drugs in combination is frequent, leading to higher risk of side-effects. Among biomedical side-effects of doping, the cardiovascular ones are the most deleterious. Myocardial infarction, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, thrombosis, arrythmogenesis, heart failure and sudden cardiac death have been noted following drug abuse. This paper reviews the literature on the adverse cardiovascular effects after abuse of prohibited substances and methods in athletes, aiming to inform physicians, trainers and athletes and to discourage individuals from using drugs during sports.

actively at work on the concept of the terminology used in our field to identify children who are handicapped by their behavior. During the past two years a subcommittee appointed by the Executive Committee has been developing and revising a position paper which focuses on terminology. The entire text of the paper is presented on the following pages. The initial ideas for the paper's content were discussed and agreed upon in April 1983 at the Spring Executive Committee meeting. During the ensuing year a position statement was published in Behavioral Disorders and comments were solicited. A draft version of the position paper was prepared for the Spring Executive meeting in April 1984. In September 1984 38 persons in our field were sent copies of the draft for review, and their comments were solicited. Those comments were considered at the Fall Executive Committee meeting. At that meeting the Executive Committee finalized the content of the paper, and the final draft was completed in February 1985. While the text which follows represents the end product of the original subcommittee, it remains open for comments and consideration from the membership. In order to facilitate such comments, the Executive Committee conducted a program session entitled Issues in Terminology for Children Who Are Handicapped by Their Behavior during the 1985 CEC Conference in Anaheim. At that session the position was reviewed and five professionals responded, representing various perspectives on the issue. There was also an audience response period. If, after reading the paper, you wish to comment, please do so. Comments should be in writing and directed to Dr. Sharon Huntze, Department of Special Education, University of Missouri-Columbia, 515 South Sixth Street, Columbia, MO 65211, or to any other member of the Executive Committee.

We are delighted to announce the launch of the Journal of Physics A Best Paper Prize. There will be three prizes worth £250 each awarded annually for well written papers that make an outstanding contribution to the field. All articles published during the two years prior to the award, including Fast Track Communications, regular papers, topical reviews and special issue papers, can be considered for a prize. The papers will be judged in May each year using the criteria of novelty, achievement, impact and presentation. We would now like to welcome nominations for prizes to be awarded in 2009. Eligible articles must have been published in volume 40 (2007) or 41 (2008). Papers can be nominated by our Editorial Board members (who are exempt from the competition) or by readers of the journal. Please send an email to the journal editorial office (jphysa@iop.org) giving the publication details of the paper and stating (in no more than 1000 words) how it meets the criteria listed above. Authors cannot nominate their own papers. The closing date for nominations is 31 January 2009. The first set of awards will be announced following the 2009 Editorial Board meeting and winners will receive their prizes shortly thereafter. The winners' articles will be featured on the journal homepage and showcased in IOPSelect (http://www.iop.org/Select/). For further information please contact the editorial office (jphysa@iop.org). Carl M Bender Editor-in-Chief Neil Scriven Publisher

This report challenges the status quo in student teaching and outlines a program of joint responsibility by the college and the public school.

Charles Lees has produced a succinct yet compelling assessment of the Greens' “long march to power” in Germany through a succession of state governments to the Social Democratic–Green national coalition formed following the 1998 Bundestag election. His account is conceptually sound and (apart from several omissions) highly informative. It provides useful insights into the dynamics of SPD–Green politics that will interest German specialists and comparativists alike.

This annotated bibliography is a list of 676 journal articles, book chapters, dissertations, and ERIC documents related to the teaching and learning of second and foreign language writing. The list is a compilation of bibliographies published in the Journal of Second Language Writing during the years 1993–1997, with entries dating from 1991 to 1997. After a brief introduction, which includes the databases that were searched and the periodicals that were examined, the bibliography presents the entries in alphabetical order by author. Following an author index is a 23-page subject index to the entries.