Confira abaixo alguns links pra você continuar navegando
Only 1 left in stock - order soon. Available for download now. Provide feedback about this page. There's a problem loading this menu right now.
SPD Spring Catalog by Small Press Distribution - Issuu
Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Would you like to report poor quality or formatting in this book? Click here Would you like to report this content as inappropriate? Click here Do you believe that this item violates a copyright? Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations.
Ocorreu algum erro e a página que você está procurando não pode ser encontrada
View or edit your browsing history. Get to Know Us. Not Enabled Word Wise: Enabled Average Customer Review: With the above caveats in mind we asked the following: How do such patterns compare with other disciplines of the Humanities? Is there any mismatch between the collaborative way that the field describes itself and what we find when we examine the evidence of publication patterns and practices in its key journals? To the best of our knowledge, the empirical evidence of publication practices of Digital Humanities scholars has not, until our research, been systematically investigated.
Looking to the Humanities more generally, and across the scientific domains, it is clear from the quantitative studies that have been carried out that with a few exceptions, co- or multi-authorship has been increasing across the disciplines since the post-World War II period. One of the first to notice this was Smith whose analysis of publications in American Psychologist published between and revealed an increase in co-authorship.
Authors such as Cronin have also showed that co-authorship across disciplines has been increasing, with the largest increases in science Cronin, More recently, Wuchty et al. They found that In sciences and engineering, In fact, collaborative activities of researchers in the social sciences are more comparable to those of researchers in the [natural sciences and engineering] than in the humanities A number of publications have reflected on the new collaborative possibilities that electronic publishing can offer and that digital humanities work can require see, for example, Kelleher et al.
However, looking to studies of collaborative publication patterns in Digital Humanities, it is clear that relatively little has been done on this from a quantitative perspective. The main exception is Spiro and Spiro Whereas 5 of 1. In order to establish a comparative context for the trends in multi-authorship that we observed in DH, we included the Annals of the Association of American Geographers in our analysis.
We selected this journal because it is a respected Geography journal that attracts a range of research, including research with technical applications or methodologies, for example, GIS. As specified on their website: The Annals of the Association of American Geographers publishes original, timely, and innovative peer-reviewed articles that advance knowledge in all facets of the discipline.
These articles address significant research problems and issues, and are attuned to the sensibilities of a diverse scholarly audience … [with] articles in four major areas—Environmental Sciences; Methods, Models, and Geographic Information Science; Nature and Society; and People, Place, and Region. Once harvested, all data were exported to Excel for initial viewing. As far as possible, the data were cleaned and regularized—e.
Wills and Edward G. This occurs quite commonly, and is more common for people who have published heavily over a long time: This table had to be prepared by hand, and this obviously risks both false pairings two very similar names which are not, in fact, the same person and omissions two names which should map to the same person but are treated as separate people.
Neither sort of error should affect the analysis of the frequency of papers with different numbers of authors, but might affect some of the other analyses. In all of the journals, there were a large number of papers that we wanted to exclude from analysis, as they are not peer reviewed, and even though it is less likely that these would be co-authored, there are enough of them to skew the data. These include reviews, letters to the editor, responses, errata, notes on conferences and seminars, etc.
The data and metadata we harvested using Zotero did not do a good job of distinguishing between research papers and other content; though this may vary from journal to journal. Fortunately, there is an approach that can be used though not with complete accuracy to differentiate between publication types: In our SQL analysis, we read in details of papers and authors, followed by a separately prepared list of authors with identified aliases alternative spellings etc.
Following various preparatory SQL data processing steps, we identified all cases where two or more papers shared a common title. These were examined to see whether any such pairs groupings of papers were genuine different research papers, common title. This does occur, although it is rare in our data.
See a Problem?
In some cases, this may be because a subtitle has been omitted in our bibliographic data. All papers with common titles were then removed apart from any identified exceptions. In the case of CHum, of papers were moved c. The cleaned data were then imported into an SQL database and sorted into groups based on the number of authors. The annual observed frequencies of papers with n authors were then calculated.
For each group, a linear regression was calculated in order to determine within a given journal whether the incidence of n -authored papers had changed over time. For each journal, the data were also processed so that dual-authored papers could be analysed using a connectivity index Bell et al. A migration connectivity index Bell et al.
It varies between possible values of 0.
- Little Easter?
- The Political Teachings of Jesus?
- The Havocs.
An analogous index can be constructed for linkages between collaborative authors, for a given journal. Clearly, these are theoretical constraints, and whilst a value of zero is feasible, a value of one is unlikely to be observed. In Figure 1 , it is shown that the trend over time is for single authorship to predominate and hold steady. We note that there is very marked variation year-by-year in the number of single-authored papers: There is a significant increase in dual- and triple-authored papers but the increases for four- and five-authored papers are not significant see Table 1.
Similar authors to follow
In Figure 2 , it is shown that in LLC — , single-authored papers are predominant and though the trend over time shows a decrease in the number of single-authored papers, this decrease is not statistically significant. Again, there is strong fluctuation in the observed number of single-authored papers.
A significant increase in triple-authored papers can be observed but this is not the case for joint-authored or four- or five-authored papers see Table 2. In Figure 3 , it is shown that single-authored papers are predominant, and though the trend over time shows a slight increase, it is not statistically significant; statistically significant increases in collaborative publishing patterns can be seen in all other sets of n -authored papers see Table 3. The connectivity analysis showed a journal level index value of 0.
This might be an effect of the differing time frames over which the journals were analysed. A journal level index was also constructed for AAAG, with data over a similar length of time to CHum, and was found to be lower at 0. Further analysis of a wider set of journals would be beneficial to gain a greater understanding of the range of variation of this index in journals in different disciplines.