Search results

This chapter is a position paper that explores issues relating to the design of new digital technologies that could enable even nonmusicians to create music they find meaningful and through which they can express their unique musical personality. We first propose criteria for evaluating the musical effectiveness of new tools, and then present a simple cognitive model to help explain key issues related to how humans are able to create and experience music. On this basis, we derive a set of guiding principles towards designing a new generation of tools that support creation. A major theoretical and practical challenge we raise is the need to bridge between mind and tool – that is, between the creator’s intents, which represent subjective musical experiences, and the computational formalisms required by digital tools in order to realize them. We also discuss the need for deep personalization on the levels of concepts, tools, and workflow. We finally propose components for a common framework that will enable the design of a new generation of tools that can explore many different approaches for expanding the bounds of personal creative expression

This review aims to show, broadly, how the h‐index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use.

The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h‐index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation.

The analysis shows how the h‐index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application.

The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h‐index as its latest addition. The use of the h‐index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h‐index by more studies.

In a series of mid-20th century cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has modified and diversified the status of the enemy in U.S. law. We see a shift away from the statist egalitarian model toward a transnationalized model of enemies. U.S. Supreme Court decisions in three clusters of cases (German enemy aliens, the internment of the West Coast Japanese Americans, and Communist) from the 1940s and 1950s prefigure the radicalized post-9/11 “enemy combatant” status. The choice for such enemy conceptions is both a result of and a contribution to the changes in contemporary practices of violence.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the findings of two recently published papers (Norris and Oppenheim, 2003; and Li et al., 2010).

The findings were analysed from the practitioner's perspective about the procedures involved in calculating the indicator values and the ranks and ratings. This was done with the purpose of playing the devil's advocate, contemplating the reservations and arguments of those who do not want to use metrics based on database searches.

One advantage of this project is that its results can be compared at least partially with the findings of the three earlier RAEs (although its grade classes have changed), as well as with some of the other ranking lists in library and information management areas.

Very importantly, the authors concluded that “it would be premature in the extreme to suggest that citation‐based indicators could be used as a cost‐effective alternative to expert judgments”. This is a strong, very realistic and fair statement. Even this recent project's results are very valuable in spite of the problems mentioned.

In this article, the ideas and methods behind the “patent-paper citation” are scrutinised by following the intellectual and technical development of approaches and ideas in early work on patentometrics. The aim is to study how references from patents to papers came to play a crucial role in establishing a link between science and technology.

The study comprises a conceptual history of the “patent paper citation” and its emergence as an important indicator of science and technology interaction. By tracing key references in the field, it analyses the overarching frameworks and ideas, the conceptual “hinterland”, in which the approach of studying patent references emerged.

The analysis explains how interest in patents – not only as legal and economic artefacts but also as scientific documents – became evident in the 1980s. The focus on patent citations was sparked by a need for relevant and objective indicators and by the greater availability of databases and methods. Yet, the development of patentometrics also relied on earlier research, and established theories, on the relation between science and technology.

This is the first attempt at situating patentometrics in a larger societal and scientific context. The paper offers a reflexive and nuanced analysis of the “patent-paper citation” as a theoretical and historical construct, and it calls for a broader and contextualised understanding of patent references, including their social, legal and rhetorical function.

The purpose of this paper is to present a narrative review of studies on the citing behavior of scientists, covering mainly research published in the last 15 years. Based on the results of these studies, the paper seeks to answer the question of the extent to which scientists are motivated to cite a publication not only to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of scientific peers, but also for other, possibly non‐scientific, reasons.

The review covers research published from the early 1960s up to mid‐2005 (approximately 30 studies on citing behavior‐reporting results in about 40 publications).

The general tendency of the results of the empirical studies makes it clear that citing behavior is not motivated solely by the wish to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of colleague scientists, since the individual studies reveal also other, in part non‐scientific, factors that play a part in the decision to cite. However, the results of the studies must also be deemed scarcely reliable: the studies vary widely in design, and their results can hardly be replicated. Many of the studies have methodological weaknesses. Furthermore, there is evidence that the different motivations of citers are “not so different or ‘randomly given’ to such an extent that the phenomenon of citation would lose its role as a reliable measure of impact”.

Given the increasing importance of evaluative bibliometrics in the world of scholarship, the question “What do citation counts measure?” is a particularly relevant and topical issue.

Two recent studies have asked clients for their views of the effectiveness of the advisory service of ACAS. Both found strong support for this service, although doubts are expressed as to whether an independent national survey managed to achieve a representative cross‐section of views given considerable non‐response to its questionnaire. ACAS proved to be especially important to small firms in a Scottish rural area, calling into question the decline in help by ACAS to this area of industry.