Search

Ongoing problems attracting women into many Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects have many potential explanations. This article investigates whether the possible undercitation of women associates with lower proportions of, or increases in, women in a subject. It uses six million articles published in 1996–2012 across up to 331 fields in six mainly English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. The proportion of female first- and last-authored articles in each year was calculated and 4,968 regressions were run to detect first-author gender advantages in field normalized article citations. The proportion of female first authors in each field correlated highly between countries and the female first-author citation advantages derived from the regressions correlated moderately to strongly between countries, so both are relatively field specific. There was a weak tendency in the United States and New Zealand for female citation advantages to be stronger in fields with fewer women, after excluding small fields, but there was no other association evidence. There was no evidence of female citation advantages or disadvantages to be a cause or effect of changes in the proportions of women in a field for any country. Inappropriate uses of career-level citations are a likelier source of gender inequities.

PurposeIn order to solve the current imbalance of academic resources within the discipline, this article builds a three-dimensional talent evaluation model based on the topic–author–citation based on the z index and proposes the ZAS index to evaluate scholars on different research topics within the discipline.Design/methodology/approachBased on the sample data of the CSSCI journals in the discipline of physical education in the past five years, the keywords were classified into 13 categories of research topics including female sports. The ZAS index of scholars on topic of female sports and so on was calculated, and quantitative indexes such as h index p index and z index were calculated. Comparative analysis of the evaluation effect was performed.FindingsIt is found that compared with the h index and p index, the z index achieves a better balance between the quantity, quality and citation distribution of scholars' results and effectively recognizes that the citation quality is higher and the number of citations of each paper is more balanced. In addition, compared to the z index, this article is based on a ZAS index model with an improved three-dimensional topic–author–citation relationship in research fields such as female sports.Originality/valueIt can identify some outstanding scholars who are engaged in small-scale or emerging topic research such as female sports and are excellent in different research areas. Talents create an objective and fair evaluation environment. At the same time, the ranking ability of ZAS indicators in the evaluation of talents is the strongest, and it is expected to be used in practical evaluations.

Aspects of the nomenclature and classification of the subtribe Strumariinae are corrected and emended as follows: Hessea subgenus Myophila (Snijman) Snijman and Strumaria subgenus Carpolyza (Salisb.) Snijman are described, and Strumaria section Gemmaria (Salisb.) Snijman is validated; the correct author citations for several names in Strumaria that were invalidly published by Jacquin are established; and a complete infrageneric synopsis for the actinomorphic-flowered taxa of subtribe Strumariinae is provided.

The lack of females in many Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects in the USA is an ongoing concern, with many initiatives attempting to redress this imbalance. Some life sciences are apparently areas of relatively good practice, with higher proportions of female researchers than most other STEM subjects. This paper assesses gender differences in research contributions to 14 biochemistry, genetics or molecular biology specialisms in the USA 1996–2014/8, seeking evidence of trends in publishing and citation impact that may give insights into female success. With four exceptions (biochemistry, biophysics, biotechnology, and structural biology), the fields achieved or maintained at least 40% female first authors by 2018, with developmental biology and endocrinology both attaining female first author majorities. A regression analysis found close to gender parity overall in citation impact but a small male first author citation advantage in more fields than the opposite: an up to 3% increase in logged citation ratio to the world mean. This was partly due to males first authoring with larger teams. Fields with relatively many females did not favour female-led research with more citations, however.

Nomenclature issues of irises associated with the Turkish flora are discussed. In particular, Iris orientalis and four related names, I. ochroleuca, I. monnieri, I. gigantea, and I. albida, are typified. Lectotypes are designated for I. orientalis, I. monnieri, I. gigantea, and I. albida; a neotype for the Linnaean name I. ochroleuca is designated. Also, further support is provided for the suggestions that I. monnieri is a synonym to I. orientalis, and the author citation of the name I. monnieri is Redouté.

The genus Tephroseris (Rchb. in Mössler 1829: 1498) Reichenbach (1841: 87) comprises 15 (Cufodontis 1933) to about 50 (Nordenstam 2007) species distributed in Europe, Asia, and North America. Tephroseris integrifolia (Linnaeus 1753: 925) Holub (1973: 173) subsp. aurantiaca “(Hoppe ex Willdenow 1803: 2081) Nordenstam (1978: 44)” is a name currently accepted for a subspecies native to Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Switzerland, Ukraine, and Balkan Peninsula (Greuter 2006+, CWG 2021, POWO 2021, WFO 2021). In Italy it was recorded by mistake (Bartolucci et al. 2018, 2020).

SummaryA synopsis of Plagiocheilus (Compositae: Astereae) is provided, giving full synonymy, type citations and the location of known types, together with relevant notes and commentary, and the currently accepted distribution of each taxon; the distribution of taxa is also tabulated. Six species are recognised, one containing three subspecies. A key to species is presented. One author citation is corrected following an incorrect assumption by de Candolle when describing Plagiocheilus tanacetoides. The synonymy of Polygyne inconspicua, under Eclipta prostrata, is précised once again. An index to names associated with Plagiocheilus is given, and the nomen nudum of Plagiocheilus herzogii commented upon.

Various author citations for the African species Abutilon bidentatum are usually used. According to the International Code of Nomenclature, its basionym was effectively and validly published on the printed labels of the Schimper exsiccata Iter Abyssinicum II n. 1003 and the type must be chosen accordingly. Cover: (c) Ina Dinter - www.centralafricanplants.org

The diagnosis and treatment of atopic disorders associated with specific aerobiological triggers require basic botanical training. However, the identification of specific pollen can often be confounded by broad naming conventions that range from categorized colloquial to scientific names based on either higher taxonomic levels or, in some cases, binomial nomenclature. Physicians specializing in allergy often lack a comprehensive understanding with respect to plant taxonomy and botanical nomenclature that are critical skills required for clinical practice and research programs evaluating pollen and airborne fungal spores. In addition, binomial and current family designation and synonyms, including author citation are often misused, causing a misinterpretation of existing plants species or pollen types. It is critical that the correct botanical name is linked to a validated specimen and scientific naming conventions are used where possible by the clinician and researcher. In relation to pollen identification, we propose that clinicians and researchers should provide the currently accepted binomial nomenclature, offer relevant synonyms, and use the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group names.

Academic influence has been traditionally measured by citation counts and metrics derived from it, such as H-index and G-index. PageRank based algorithms have been used to give higher weight to citations from more influential papers. A better metric is to add authors into the citation network so that the importance of authors and papers are evaluated recursively within the same framework. Based on such heterogeneous author-citation academic network, this paper gives a new algorithm for ranking authors. It is tested on two large networks, one in Heath domain that contains about 500 million citation links, the other in Computer Science that contains 8 million links. We find that our method outperforms other 10 methods in terms of the number of award winners identified in their top-k rankings. Surprisingly, our method can identify 8 Turing award winners among top 20 authors. It also demonstrates some interesting phenomenons. For instance, among the top authors, our ranking negatively correlates with citation ranking and paper count ranking.

Scientific impact is commonly associated with the number of citations received. However, an author can easily boost his own citation count by (i) publishing articles that cite his own previous work (self-citations), (ii) having co-authors citing his work (co-author citations), or (iii) exchanging citations with authors from other research groups (reciprocated citations). Even though these friendly citations inflate an author's perceived scientific impact, author ranking algorithms do not normally address them. They, at most, remove self-citations. Here we present Friends-Only Citations AnalySer (FOCAS), a method that identifies friendly citations and reduces their negative effect in author ranking algorithms. FOCAS combines the author citation network with the co-authorship network in order to measure author proximity and penalises citations between friendly authors. FOCAS is general and can be regarded as an independent module applied while running (any) PageRank-like author ranking algorithm. FOCAS can be tuned to use three different criteria, namely authors' distance, citation frequency, and citation recency, or combinations of these. We evaluate and compare FOCAS against eight state-of-the-art author ranking algorithms. We compare their rankings with a ground-truth of best paper awards. We test our hypothesis on a citation and co-authorship network comprised of seven Information Retrieval top-conferences. We observed that FOCAS improved author rankings by 25% on average and, in one case, leads to a gain of 46%.

How a scientific literature is shaped both at the local and general level is an important question to answer. One practical way of achieving this task is to identify the roles played by authors (academicians) as actors creating and disseminating knowledge in the relevant literature. To this end, this study examines roles undertaken by authors in the field of learning organizations. Identifying role typologies first requires revealing the author citation network in the field. Citation network is a matrix that summarizes citations and citation numbers between authors. To construct this matrix, articles in the local and general literature in the field of learning organizations, published and indexed between January 01, 2015 and February 20, 2017, were collected from Google Scholar by using the Java-based Selenium Library. An author citation network with 19,525 actors was created from this list. A social network analysis was conducted to identify author roles, followed by a discussion of what these roles mean for the local literature. Despite defining four typologies, observing only one type of role typology indicates that the local literature is not well integrated with the general literature. This study recommends strategic assessments for increasing the contribution ability of local literature to general one. Using this approach, it would be possible to find answers to the questions of which roles to develop via which authors and relationships, and how to remove the obstacles to development of local literature.

We evaluate author impact indicators and ranking algorithms on two publication databases using large test data sets of well-established researchers. The test data consists of (1) ACM fellowship and (2) various life-time achievement awards. We also evaluate different approaches of dividing credit of papers among co-authors and analyse the impact of self-citations. Furthermore, we evaluate different graph normalisation approaches for when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs. We find that PageRank outperforms citation counts in identifying well-established researchers. This holds true when PageRank is computed on author citation graphs but also when PageRank is computed on paper graphs and paper scores are divided among co-authors. In general, the best results are obtained when co-authors receive an equal share of a paper's score, independent of which impact indicator is used to compute paper scores. The results also show that removing author self-citations improves the results of most ranking metrics. Lastly, we find that it is more important to personalise the PageRank algorithm appropriately on the paper level than deciding whether to include or exclude self-citations. However, on the author level, we find that author graph normalisation is more important than personalisation.

A new species of Cinnamomum Schaeff. from the Pacific coast of Ecuador is described and discussed. Cinnamomum latifolium van der Werff is distinctive for its broad triplinerved leaves with canaliculate petioles, densely pubescent young twigs, and 2-locular inner stamens. In addition, six species recently described in Aiouea Aubl. should, in this author’s opinion, be placed within Cinnamomum. The new combinations C. ampullaceum (Lorea-Hern.) van der Werff, C. hirsutum (Lorea-Hern.) van der Werff, C. paratriplinerve (Lorea-Hern.) van der Werff, C. pseudoglaziovii (Lorea-Hern.) van der Werff, C. rubrinervium (Lorea-Hern.) van derWerff, and C. uninervium (Lorea-Hern.) van der Werff are accordingly published. The author citation of the recently transferred C. baitelloanum van der Werff & P. L. R. Moraes to Aiouea is rejected.

Important journals usually guide the research and development directions in academic circles. Therefore, it is necessary to find the important journals among a number of academic journals. This study presents a model named the multiple-link, mutually reinforced journal-ranking (MLMRJR) model based on the PageRank and the Hyperlink-Induced Topics Search algorithms that considers not only the quantity and quality of citations in intra-networks, but also the mutual reinforcement in inter-networks. First, the multiple links between four intra-networks and three inter-networks of paper, author, and journal are involved simultaneously. Second, a time factor is added to the paper citation network as the weight of the edges to solve the rank bias problem of the PageRank algorithm. Third, the author citation network and the co-authorship network are considered simultaneously. The results of a case study showed that the proposed MLMRJR model can obtain a reasonable journal ranking based on Spearman's and Kendall's ranking correlation coefficient and ROC curve analysis. This study provides a systematic view of such field from the perspective of measuring the prestige of journals, which can help researchers decide where to view publications and publish their papers, and help journal editors and organizations evaluate the quality of other journals and focus on the strengths of their own journals.

Immunology and microbiology research are essential for human and animal health. Unlike many other health fields, they do not usually centre around the curing or helping individual patients but focus on the microscopic scale instead. These fields are interesting from a gender perspective because two theories seeking to explain gender differences in career choices in the USA (people/things and communal/agentic goals) might produce conflicting expectations about their gender balances. This article assesses the gender shares of journal articles and gendered citation rates of five subfields of the Scopus Immunology and Microbiology broad category 1996–2014/18, for research with solely US author affiliations. Only Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (38% female) had not reached gender parity in publishing by 2018. There was a female first author citation advantage in Parasitology but a disadvantage in Immunology. Immunology, Parasitology and Virology, had female last author citation disadvantages, but all gender effects were much smaller (

What can we learn about research dynamics from ‘citation profiles’, a free product offered by Google Scholar? In this contribution we inspect citation profiles for a number of scientometrics scholars. The selected profiles range from highly prestigious scholars to moderate and lower stature colleagues, and from active and highly productive to inactive or former colleagues. Author citation profiles are compared to a theoretically expected pattern, based on scientometrics theories about publication delay and the immediacy effect in actively growing research fronts. The found profiles show a general increase of author citation levels from the millennium onwards, pointing to raised interest and activity in the field. Contrary to expectations based on the immediacy effect, we find prolonged high citation scores of no-longer-productive authors. Comparison of the author citation levels shows a lasting dominance of the founding fathers of the field. Explaining these patterns, requires both focused and explorative elements in the selective attention of citing authors in a community of researchers. The elements combining in citation dynamics are threefold: (1) fast consumption of novel contributions targeted to audiences in research fronts, explaining immediacy; (2) ritual referencing to basic ideas and methods, as paradigm focal points, explaining prolonged high citation; and (3) explorative searching, explaining (renewed) citation of earlier or remote work.

The correct author citations for several names in the genera Drimia (Hyacinthaceae) and Eriospermum (Ruscaceae) that were invalidly published by N.J. Jacquin are provided. The later validation dates for these names do not have implications for their nomenclatural priority.

The scientific literature on altmetrics published from 2005 to 2018 was analysed. The overall structure of the speciality’s intellectual landscape is depicted through clusters of co-cited references, analysing journal and author co-citations. The 56,936 references cited in the 8,145 papers of all kinds retrieved from the Dimensions bibliographic database were included in the initial dataset used in the analysis. Pathfinder networks were generated with CiteSpace to determine the most prevalent journals and authors in the speciality. Conceptual structures were identified by co-citation clustering and latent semantic analysis. ‘Open knowledge’, ‘altmetric collection’, ‘web indicator’, ‘assessing research’, ‘Research- Gate score’, ‘open data citation advantage’, ‘Google Scholar author citation’, ‘share data’, ‘academic tweet’, ‘Mendeley' readership count’ and ‘social media metrics’ were observed to be the lines of research presently favoured by specialists. Statistical indicators were calculated to determine the journals and contributors making the greatest impact.

The SPAR Ontology Network is a suite of complementary ontology modules to describe the scholarly publishing domain. BiDO Standard Bibliometric Measures is part of its set of ontologies. It allows describing of numerical and categorical bibliometric data such as h-index, author citation count, journal impact factor. These measures may be used to evaluate scientific production of researchers. However, they are not enough. In a previous study, we determined the lack of some terms to provide a more complete representation of scientific production. Hence, we have built an extension using the NeOn Methodology to restructure the BiDO ontology. With this extension, it is possible to represent and measure the number of documents from research, the number of citations from a paper and the number of publications in high impact journals according to its area and discipline.

The factors influencing academic citations have been extensively discussed in the literature. However, few studies have investigated whether atypical recombinations of references, topics, and keywords, and academic-network factors (e.g., author citation network-related factors, co-author network-related factors, and institution citation network-related factors) are correlated with paper citation counts. Also, most previous studies have only focused on one discipline. Twenty-four factors were classified into three main categories, including the novelty of the paper, bibliometric indicators, and the influence of the academic network of authors and institutions, which have not yet been simultaneously considered. To fill this gap in the literature, a neural network model was constructed to measure the influence of these 24 factors on citation counts using the weight product of connecting neurons. The results demonstrated that the influence of novelty, bibliometric, and academic-network-related factors on citation counts vary significantly among the four studied disciplines (library & information science, nuclear science & technology, computer science & software engineering, and history). It was found that the influence of multiple factors in the novelty category on citation counts is higher than the bibliometric and academic-network categories, while the individual factor in the novelty category is not always the most influential factor (median z-score, recombination topic pairs, and recombination keyword pairs).

Knowledge communication plays a fundamental role in studies of science of science. This paper aims to examine inter-specialty communication patterns within a discipline using author citation networks. Two metrics are designed, including average knowledge flow and average shortest distance. They are used to identify the impact and diffusion characteristics of inter-specialty knowledge communication. We apply these metrics to an empirical data set of Chinese library and information science (CLIS) publications. We find that the two metrics portray different aspects of knowledge communication in CLIS and conclude that indirect paths, the size of specialties, and the communication structure among specialties may lead to the differences.

The problems of synonymy, incorrect species author citation/abbreviation and spelling errors are hampering botanical research around the globe. This article was aimed to quantify the intensity and errors encountered in this regard in published botanical articles pertaining to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. To address this issue, 100 articles published in 1999-2015 were reviewed. A total of 5460 entries were processed carefully and 1350 species binomials (excluding repititions) were extracted that were linked with 1333 accepted binomials according to theplantlist.org. Out of these accepted species binomials, 1109 were communicated correctly, whereas the remaining 224 binomials were conveyed in the form of 241 synonyms. Average synonyms to accepted binomials ratio for the said timespan was calculated quite high as 13.99%. By taking these conveyed synonyms as our sub sample, we further detected 712 errors related to orthography, author citations and abbreviations. A strong positive and significant Pearson correlation was observed amongst the number of articles published, total numbers of species binomials communicated and the number of synonyms conveyed. These taxonomic errors and nomenclatural issues in botanical articles are causing ambiguity and confusions, thus reducing the reliability and reproducibility of botanical researches. Our results prove modest basic taxonomic skills of authors, dwindling taxonomic understanding and non-updating of regional floras on a periodic basis as primary reasons. We briefly discuss this global issue and its consequences and also document numerous suggestions to mitigate the impacts.

This study aims at proposing three prestige indices—closeness prestige, input domain, and proximity prestige- as useful measures for the impact of a particular node in citation networks. It compares these prestige indices with other impact indices as it is still unknown what dimensions of impact these indices actually measure. The prestige indices enable us to distinguish the most prominent actors in a directed network, similar to the centrality indices in undirected networks. Correlation analysis and principal component analysis were conducted on the author citation network to identify the differentiated implications of the three prestige indices from the existing impact indices. We selected simple citation counting, h-index, PageRank, and the three kinds of centrality indices which assume undirected networks as the existing impact measures for comparison with the three prestige indices. The results indicate that these prestige indices demonstrate distinct impact dimension from the other impact indices. The prestige indices reflect indirect impact while the others direct impact.

This paper proposes a simple, flexible, axiom-based mechanism for facilitating the comparison between a scholar's citation count and the visibility of the journals wherein the scholar's articles were published. The goal is to help research review bodies easily grasp the distinction these two forms of scholarly accomplishment and to provide a transparent way to articulate expectations about them to scholars. The approach is demonstrated using a widely applied and cooperative functional form that can reflect, via different parameter values, a wide range of possible beliefs about the relative merits of citation counts and journal visibility.

In this study, 1035 articles on giftedness published between the years of 1956-2016 and indexed in WoS were analyzed in terms of their bibliometric qualities and the social network structure was revealed by means of using CiteSpace 4.0 program in order to present the historical process and the general structure of the field of giftedness and thus help the field to be viewed from above with a bird’s eye. As a result of this research; the distribution of the number of publication and citation of articles on giftedness within the field of education according to years, countries, university/institute labels, and research fields. Moreover, word and keyword network structure, cited journal network structure, co-cited reference network structure and co-cited author citation network structure belonging to these publications were revealed. It is thought that researchers to start a new study will make use of the results of this study so as to get as much information as possible about the field of giftedness., Bu araştırmada üstün yeteneklilik alanının tarihsel sürecini ve genel yapısını ortaya koyarak alanın kuş bakışı görülmesine yardımcı olmak amacıyla üstün yeteneklilik ile ilgili 1956-2016 yılları arasında yayımlanan ve WoS veri tabanında indekslenen 1035 makale bibliyometrik özellikleri açısından incelenmiş ve CiteSpace 4.0 programı kullanılarak sosyal ağ yapısı ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda yıllara, ülkelere, üniversite/enstitü künyelerine ve araştırma alanlarına göre üstün yeteneklilere yönelik eğitim alanında yayımlanmış makalelerin dağılımı belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca bu yayınlara ait kelime ve anahtar kelime ağ yapısı, dergi atıf ağ yapısı, kaynak ortak atıf ağ yapısı ve yazar ortak atıf ağ yapısı ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Yeni bir çalışmaya başlayacak olan araştırmacıların, üstün yeteneklilik alanında olabildiğince çok bilgi edinmek amacıyla bu araştırmanın sonuçlarından yararlanabileceği düşünülmektedir.

This paper presents an assessment, using global databases of start-up finances and academic research papers of "start-up readiness" of research topics and researchers related to commercialization-oriented fundamental research. For research domains such as life sciences that pursue fundamental scientific understanding and applications intended for immediate use, academic entrepreneurship has played a pivotal role in commercialization. Case studies of start-ups in the biopharmaceutical research domain suggest that the biopharmaceutical field has abundant opportunities stemming from scientific research, commercialization, and entrepreneurship in life sciences. This assessment method sorts specific industry segments by which financing activities are active, and by which related growing research topics attract increased academic attention. We constructed networks of author citation and co-authorship from paper citation networks related to research topics in industry segments in the biopharmaceutical domain. Results obtained across all the research topics we surveyed demonstrated that authors in the top 10% of degree centrality ranking in both networks are far more likely to be start-up participants than other authors. More than conventional research methods, our computational approach might provide convenient, dynamic comprehensive, global and real-time understanding of "start-up readiness" of research topics and researchers in user-inspired fundamental research.

Methods for ranking authors of research publications generally attach equal value to all citations obtained for the publications. The Page Rank algorithm can be applied by treating each paper as a page and a citation as a link to bring out the differential values of citations thereby over-coming this limitation. However, the twin problems of ranking of papers and ranking of authors cannot be treated separately. In this article, we present a novel Author Ranking Algorithm that interleaves the ranking of papers and authors. The algorithm puts into practice the idea that an author's rank is determined by the quality or rank of papers which cite him while the ranks of the papers in turn depend on the quality of its authors. Further, this algorithm also considers collaborative contribution by factoring in the ranks of co-authored papers. We illustrate the algorithm by applying it to an author citation network consisting of authors who published their works on Web Semantics in the year 2013-2014. We also show h...

A brief history of the publication of Musci Alleghanienses, an exsiccata distributed by William Starling Sullivant in 1846, is outlined. An annotated list of 11 new species and one new variety of moss distributed in this exsiccata is presented. It is shown that names of 10 species were effectively published in a review of this exsiccata by Asa Gray in 1846, before 15 January, and only Leucophanes leanum Sull. [ ≡ Brothera leana (Sull.) Mull.Hal.] was validly published on 28 January 1846 on the corrected label of No. 172 in the exsiccata. In addition, the material distributed in No. 60, as an unnamed variety of Leskea polyantha Hedw. [ ≡ Pylaisia polyantha (Hedw.) Schimp.], was described in 1848 by Sullivant as a new species, Leskea tenuirostris Bruch & Schimp. ex Sull. [ ≡ Pylaisiadelpha tenuirostris (Bruch & Schimp. ex Sull.) W.R.Buck]. All these names of moss taxa described from the material distributed in Musci Alleghanienses, except one (Leptodon ohioensis Sull. [ ≡ Forsstroemia ohioensis (Sull.) ...

A history of the discoveries and descriptions of species of the broadly conceived genus Racomitrium Brid. in the Southern Hemisphere in 1800-1850 is briefly outlined. Dryptodon crispulus Hook.f. et Wilson and D. rupestris Hook.f. et Wilson are the two earliest described species in the Southern Hemisphere, from the Campbell Islands south of New Zealand and Isla Hermite in the Cape Horn area in southern South America, respectively, which are still accepted in modern moss taxonomy. The taxonomic and nomenclatural history of these species is discussed and it is proved that the authorship of their names in Racomitrium should be ascribed to “(Hook.f. et Wilson) Wilson”, not to “(Hook.f. et Wilson) Hook.f. et Wilson”, as commonly used in the bryological literature. The problem of the valid publication of Bucklandiella crispula (Hook.f. et Wilson) Bednarek- Ochyra et Ochyra is briefly considered and Dryptodon rupestris Hook.f. et Wilson is lectotypified.

Author citation of four species names in Lembophyllum Lindb. is rectified. Their authorship was incorrectly ascribed to S.O. Lindberg because of the misinterpretation of citations using “ex” and “in”. The following names should correctly be ascribed to E.G. Paris who published them in 1896 in Index bryologicus: Lembophyllum clandestinum (Hook.f. et Wilson) Lindb. ex Paris, L. cochlearifolium (Schwagr.) Lindb. ex Paris, L. divulsum (Hook.f. et Wilson) Lindb. ex Paris and L. vagum (Hornsch. ex Mull.Hal.) Lindb. ex Paris. Lembophyllum sect. Rigodiella (E.B.Bartram) Ochyra et Bednarek-Ochyra, comb. nov. is the correct name for the superfluous sectional name L. sect. Looseria (Ther.) Tangney.

Background: The correct author citation of Oxalis sonderiana (Kuntze) J.F.Macbr. and the validity and identity of the species Oxalis beneprotecta R.Knuth, Oxalis bullulata T.M.Salter and Oxalis pulchella Jacq. var. beneprotecta (R.Knuth) T.M.Salter are unclear. Objectives: To resolve the nomenclatural and taxonomic confusion surrounding these four taxa. Method: We studied relevant herbarium records (especially type material) of all the taxa, and paired this with scrutiny of all publications that bear reference to the nomenclature and taxonomy of these species. Results: The correct author citation for Oxalis sonderiana has been determined; Oxalis bullulata is confirmed as a distinct species, and the continued recognition of Oxalis beneprotecta as a variety of Oxalis pulchella is suggested. It is further ascertained that the name ‘ Oxalis nidulans Turcz.’ is not a later homonym, but a reference to a misapplication of Oxalis nidulans Eckl. & Zeyh. to the type specimen of Oxalis sonderiana . Conclusion: These results clarify the current confusion surrounding these taxa in global herbaria and in national and international databases.

In-text frequency-weighted citation counting has been seen as a particularly promising solution to the well-known problem of citation analysis that it treats all citations equally, be they crucial to the citing paper or perfunctory. But what is a good weighting scheme? We compare 12 different in-text citation frequency-weighting schemes in the field of library and information science LIS and explore author citation impact patterns based on their performance in these schemes. Our results show that the ranks of authors vary widely with different weighting schemes that favor or are biased against common citation impact patterns-substantiated, applied, or noted. These variations separate LIS authors quite clearly into groups with these impact patterns. With consensus rank limits, the hard upper and lower bounds for reasonable author ranks that they provide suggest that author citation ranks may be subject to something like an uncertainty principle.

Much of scientific progress stems from previously published findings, but searching through the vast sea of scientific publications is difficult. We often rely on metrics of scholarly authority to find the prominent authors but these authority indices do not differentiate authority based on research topics. We present Latent Topical-Authority Indexing (LTAI) for jointly modeling the topics, citations, and topical authority in a corpus of academic papers. Compared to previous models, LTAI differs in two main aspects. First, it explicitly models the generative process of the citations, rather than treating the citations as given. Second, it models each author's influence on citations of a paper based on the topics of the cited papers, as well as the citing papers. We fit LTAI to four academic corpora: CORA, Arxiv Physics, PNAS, and Citeseer. We compare the performance of LTAI against various baselines, starting with the latent Dirichlet allocation, to the more advanced models including author-link topic model and dynamic author citation topic model. The results show that LTAI achieves improved accuracy over other similar models when predicting words, citations and authors of publications., Accepted by Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL); to appear

The type of the generic name Ipheion Rafinesque is Milla uniflora Graham but the same specific epithet had been used in Triteleia by Lindley a few years earlier for the same species with a different type. Confusion ensued concerning the correct author citation for the species under Ipheion. A taxonomic history of the name Ipheion uniflorum (Graham) Raf., a new synonym for this species, and a lectotype for Milla uniflora are presented herein. Fil: Sassone, Agostina Belén. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Botánica Darwinion. Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Instituto de Botánica Darwinion; Argentina. Freie Universität Berlin; Alemania Fil: Giussani, Liliana Mónica. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Botánica Darwinion. Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Instituto de Botánica Darwinion; Argentina Fil: Arroyo Leuenberger, Silvia. Freie Universität Berlin; Alemania

A review of the genus Stephania in southern Africa is presented. Stephania is represented by one species (Stephania abyssinica) and two infraspecific taxa in this region. A key to the infraspecific taxa, the complete synonymy and the formal descriptions are given. Taxon accounts are supplemented with geographical distribution records, notes on the ecology and known traditional uses. The two varieties of S. abyssinica can easily be distinguished as the stems and leaves of S. abyssinica var. abyssinica are glabrous while those of S. abyssinica var. tomentella are pubescent. The correct author citation of the varietal name (var. tomentella) is also provided.

The citation potential is a measure of the probability of being cited. Obviously, it is different among fields of science, social science, and humanities because of systematic differences in publication and citation behaviour across disciplines. In the past, the citation potential was studied at journal level considering the average number of references in established groups of journals (for example, the crown indicator is based on the journal subject categories in the Web of Science database). In this paper, some characterizations of the author's scientific research through three different research dimensions are proposed: production (journal papers), impact (journal citations), and reference (bibliographical sources). Then, we propose different measures of the citation potential for authors based on a proportion of these dimensions. An empirical application, in a set of 120 randomly selected highly productive authors from the CSIC Research Centre (Spain) in four subject areas, shows that the ratio between production and impact dimensions is a normalized measure of the citation potential at the level of individual authors. Moreover, this ratio reduces the between-group variance in relation to the within-group variance in a higher proportion than the rest of the indicators analysed. Furthermore, it is consistent with the type of journal impact indicator used. A possible application of this result is in the selection and promotion process within interdisciplinary institutions, since it allows comparisons of authors based on their particular scientific research., Comment: 31 pages, 4 figures and 7 tables. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1402.6317, arXiv:1304.5101; and with arXiv:1003.2167 by other authors

This article explores the feasibility, benefits, and limitations of in-text author citation analysis and tests how well it works compared with traditional author citation analysis using citation databases. In-text author citation analysis refers to author-based citation analysis using in-text citation data from full-text articles rather than reference data from citation databases. It has the potential to help with the application of citation analysis to research fields such as the social sciences that are not covered well by citation databases and to support weighted citation and cocitation counting for improved citation analysis results. We found that in-text author citation analysis can work as well as traditional citation analysis using citation databases for both author ranking and mapping if author name disambiguation is performed properly. Using in-text citation data without any author name disambiguation, ranking authors by citations is useless, whereas cocitation analysis works well for identifying major specialties and their interrelationships with cautions required for the interpretation of small research areas and some authors' memberships in specialties.