Search

This paper describes the aspectual classes in Abui, a Papuan language of the Timor-Alor-Pantar family. Abui innovated a system of aspectual stem pairing, realized by consonant mutation, vowel grading, and rime mutation. Although stem pairing is widespread (about 61% of the verbs alternate), about 38% of our 1,330 verb sample are unpaired and immutable. Abui verbal stems combine with aspectual affixes, adverbs and auxiliary verbs, whose distribution is used here together with the stem types to describe aspectual classes, which are understood as lexicalizations of transitional possibilities of lexical items (e.g. inchoative-stative vs. inchoative-gradual.inchoative-stative). The paper takes the bidimensional approach to aspect distinguishing between properties associated with the perfective-imperfective system and other aspectual marking (cf. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2002. Recent activity in the theory of aspect: accomplishments, achievements, or just non-progressive state? Linguistic Typology6(2). 199–271). Combining the features of both types of aspectual marking, we construct in a bottom-up fashion the aspectual classes in Abui and also show that these may be further refined if contextual features such as valency or degree of change (affectedness) were included. A characteristic feature of the Abui system is the elaborate system of stative-inchoative verbs sensitive to scalar and change properties (e.g. instant vs. gradual). Abui telic verbs show sensitivity to the properties of the resulting state and are formally associated with stem alternation.

This research analysed the citations styles used in 1,100 high‐impact biomedical journals and the importance attributed by their editors and other members of the editorial office to individual reference components, the citation format and method. We found 70 (6.5%) use the current American Medical Association or NLM/Vancouver style; 425 (39.2%) use their older versions or a variation; 73 (6.7%) use a standard non‐biomedical style; and 432 (39.9%) have their own house style. According to 125 respondents who answered the survey, the most important reference components include the author(s), title and year of publication, while the date of update, date of access and language are among the least important. They prefer the citation‐sequence method (65.6%) and the author‐date method (24%). A comparison of the responses to the survey and the citation guidelines showed that while two‐thirds of the respondents view the DOI and ISBN as important information, only a limited number of their journals' citation guidelines require them. Our results show that publishers, authors of standard styles and editors all agree that references should be uncomplicated and concise. A reduction in the number of various styles used might be attainable but would require an agreement between the publishers and authors of the standard styles, which would incorporate the preferences of journal editors.

Not all the journals included in credible indices meet the ethical rules of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, and there may also be trustworthy journals excluded from these indices, which means they cannot be used as whitelists for trustworthy journals. Equally, the many methods suggested to determine trustworthiness are not reliable because they include questionable criteria. The question arises whether valid criteria for identifying an untrustworthy journal can be determined and whether other assessment procedures are necessary. Since 2017, the Masaryk University Campus Library has been developing a suitable evaluation method for journals. A list of 19 criteria based on those originally suggested by Beall, COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME were reduced to 10 objectively verifiable criteria following two workshops with librarians. An evaluation of 259 biomedical journals using both the list of 19 and then 10 criteria revealed that 74 journals may have been incorrectly assessed as untrustworthy using the longer list. The most common reason for failure to comply was in the provision of sufficient editorial information and declaration of article processing charges. However, our investigation revealed that no criteria can reliably identify predatory journals. Therefore, a complex evaluation is needed combining objectively verifiable criteria with analysis of a journal's content and knowledge of the journal's background.