搜索结果：American journal of cancer research

This scientometric study analyzes Avian Influenza research from 2014 to 2023 using bibliographic data from the Web of Science database. We examined publication trends, sources, authorship, collaborative networks, document types, and geographical distribution to gain insights into the global research landscape. Results reveal a steady increase in publications, with high contributions from Chinese and American institutions. Journals such as PLoS One and the Journal of Virology published the highest number of studies, indicating their influence in this field. The most prolific institutions include the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Hong Kong, while the College of Veterinary Medicine at South China Agricultural University emerged as the most productive department. China and the USA lead in publication volume, though developed nations like the United Kingdom and Germany exhibit a higher rate of international collaboration. "Articles" are the most common document type, constituting 84.6% of the total, while "Reviews" account for 7.6%. This study provides a comprehensive view of global trends in Avian Influenza research, emphasizing the need for collaborative efforts ac

Cancer research reflects an implicit conflict. On the one hand, there is an overwhelming desire to control the disease. We all wish that. On the other hand, we would like to understand why cancer follows so many clearly defined yet puzzling patterns. Why is there such regularity in the rates of progression? Why do different tissues vary so much? There should, of course, be no conflict between control and understanding. But the history of cancer research seems to say that those different goals remain oddly estranged. Peto's 1977 article locates the seeds of this conflict most clearly. He describes what is still the most powerful theoretical perspective for analyzing the causes of cancer. He presents many key unsolved puzzles within that context. He also says why most cancer researchers are not interested in these fundamental issues. The subsequent decades of research grew around this rift, blindly, in the way that research disciplines often grow. Let us revisit Peto, almost 40 years ago. We can learn much about the current nature of cancer research.

Rankings of scholarly journals based on citation data are often met with skepticism by the scientific community. Part of the skepticism is due to disparity between the common perception of journals' prestige and their ranking based on citation counts. A more serious concern is the inappropriate use of journal rankings to evaluate the scientific influence of authors. This paper focuses on analysis of the table of cross-citations among a selection of Statistics journals. Data are collected from the Web of Science database published by Thomson Reuters. Our results suggest that modelling the exchange of citations between journals is useful to highlight the most prestigious journals, but also that journal citation data are characterized by considerable heterogeneity, which needs to be properly summarized. Inferential conclusions require care in order to avoid potential over-interpretation of insignificant differences between journal ratings. Comparison with published ratings of institutions from the UK's Research Assessment Exercise shows strong correlation at aggregate level between assessed research quality and journal citation `export scores' within the discipline of Statistics.

The journal impact factor (JIF) is the average of the number of citations of the papers published in a journal, calculated according to a specific formula; it is extensively used for the evaluation of research and researchers. The method assumes that all papers in a journal have the same scientific merit, which is measured by the JIF of the publishing journal. This implies that the number of citations measures scientific merits but the JIF does not evaluate each individual paper by its own number of citations. Therefore, in the comparative evaluation of two papers, the use of the JIF implies a risk of failure, which occurs when a paper in the journal with the lower JIF is compared to another with fewer citations in the journal with the higher JIF. To quantify this risk of failure, this study calculates the failure probabilities, taking advantage of the lognormal distribution of citations. In two journals whose JIFs are ten-fold different, the failure probability is low. However, in most cases when two papers are compared, the JIFs of the journals are not so different. Then, the failure probability can be close to 0.5, which is equivalent to evaluating by coin flipping.

This study aims to present a scientometric analysis of the journal titled Cognition for a period of 20 years from 1999 to 2018. The present study was conducted with an aim to provide a summary of research activity in current journal and characterize its most aspects. The research coverage includes the year wise distribution of articles, authors, institutions, countries and citation analysis of the journal. The analysis showed that 2870 papers were published in journal of Cognition from 1999 to 2018. The study identified top 20 prolific authors, institutions and countries of the journal. Researchers from USA have been made the most percentage of contributions.

DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology (DJLIT) formerly known as DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology is a peer-reviewed, open access, bimonthly journal. This paper presents a Scientometric analysis of the DESIDOC Journal. The paper analyses the pattern of growth of the research output published in the journal, pattern of authorship, author productivity, and, subjects covered to the papers over the period (2013-2017). It is found that 227 papers were published during the period of study (2001-2012). The maximum numbers of articles were collaborative in nature. The subject concentration of the journal noted is Scientometrics. The maximum numbers of articles (65%) have ranged their thought contents between 6 and 10 pages. The study applied standard formula and statistical tools to bring out the factual result.

This study provides quantitative evidence on how the use of journal rankings can disadvantage interdisciplinary research in research evaluations. Using publication and citation data, it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of a number of Innovation Studies units with that of leading Business & Management schools in the UK. On the basis of various mappings and metrics, this study shows that: (i) Innovation Studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary in their research than Business & Management schools; (ii) the top journals in the Association of Business Schools' rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower-ranked journals; (iii) this results in a more favourable assessment of the performance of Business & Management schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. This citation-based analysis challenges the journal ranking-based assessment. In short, the investigation illustrates how ostensibly 'excellence-based' journal rankings exhibit a systematic bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of these phenomena, in particular how the bias is likely to affect

Ageing of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-ISI journals are increasingly cornered into "transdisciplinary" Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An "externally cited impact factor" can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.

In most countries, basic research is supported by research councils that select, after peer review, the individuals or teams that are to receive funding. Unfortunately, the number of grants these research councils can allocate is not infinite and, in most cases, a minority of the researchers receive the majority of the funds. However, evidence as to whether this is an optimal way of distributing available funds is mixed. The purpose of this study is to measure the relation between the amount of funding provided to 12,720 researchers in Quebec over a fifteen year period (1998-2012) and their scientific output and impact from 2000 to 2013. Our results show that both in terms of the quantity of papers produced and of their scientific impact, the concentration of research funding in the hands of a so-called "elite" of researchers generally produces diminishing marginal returns. Also, we find that the most funded researchers do not stand out in terms of output and scientific impact.

Cancer is increasingly perceived as a systems-level, network phenomenon. The major trend of malignant transformation can be described as a two-phase process, where an initial increase of network plasticity is followed by a decrease of plasticity at late stages of tumor development. The fluctuating intensity of stress factors, like hypoxia, inflammation and the either cooperative or hostile interactions of tumor inter-cellular networks, all increase the adaptation potential of cancer cells. This may lead to the bypass of cellular senescence, and to the development of cancer stem cells. We propose that the central tenet of cancer stem cell definition lies exactly in the indefinability of cancer stem cells. Actual properties of cancer stem cells depend on the individual "stress-history" of the given tumor. Cancer stem cells are characterized by an extremely large evolvability (i.e. a capacity to generate heritable phenotypic variation), which corresponds well with the defining hallmarks of cancer stem cells: the possession of the capacity to self-renew and to repeatedly re-build the heterogeneous lineages of cancer cells that comprise a tumor in new environments. Cancer stem cells rep

Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Since the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers also the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is due to (i) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (ii) the historical record of citations older than ten years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.

As part of its program of 'Excellence in Research for Australia' (ERA), the Australian Research Council ranked journals into four categories (A*, A, B, C) in preparation for their performance evaluation of Australian universities. The ranking is important because it likely to have a major impact on publication choices and research dissemination in Australia. The ranking is problematic because it is evident that some disciplines have been treated very differently than others. This paper reveals weaknesses in the ERA journal ranking and highlights the poor correlation between ERA rankings and other acknowledged metrics of journal standing. It highlights the need for a reasonable representation of journals ranked as A* in each scientific discipline.

This study examines the role of top-tier conference publications in Hungarian computer science research. We show that the national scientometric practice, which is currently journal-oriented, diverges from international norms, creating incentive distortions in researcher evaluation. By linking multiple databases (iCore, DBLP, MTMT, MTA-ATT), we mapped Hungarian-affiliated CORE A* and A conference papers, their temporal and thematic distribution, and author trajectories. Our results indicate that, in theoretical fields, publishing at international conferences became common earlier than in applied fields. At the same time, in applied fields, successful researchers are more likely to continue their careers in foreign institutions or in industry positions. Overall, a substantial share of the already established, internationally most successful researchers are now affiliated with institutions abroad. We recommend recognizing CORE A* papers as equivalent to D1 and CORE A papers as equivalent to Q1 journals in national evaluation systems.

A number of journal classification systems have been developed in bibliometrics since the launch of the Citation Indices by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) in the 1960s. These systems are used to normalize citation counts with respect to field-specific citation patterns. The best known system is the so-called "Web-of-Science Subject Categories" (WCs). In other systems papers are classified by algorithmic solutions. Using the Journal Citation Reports 2014 of the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index (n of journals = 11,149), we examine options for developing a new system based on journal classifications into subject categories using aggregated journal-journal citation data. Combining routines in VOSviewer and Pajek, a tree-like classification is developed. At each level one can generate a map of science for all the journals subsumed under a category. Nine major fields are distinguished at the top level. Further decomposition of the social sciences is pursued for the sake of example with a focus on journals in information science (LIS) and science studies (STS). The new classification system improves on alternative options by avoiding the problem

We present a general computational theory of cancer and its developmental dynamics. The theory is based on a theory of the architecture and function of developmental control networks which guide the formation of multicellular organisms. Cancer networks are special cases of developmental control networks. Cancer results from transformations of normal developmental networks. Our theory generates a natural classification of all possible cancers based on their network architecture. Each cancer network has a unique topology and semantics and developmental dynamics that result in distinct clinical tumor phenotypes. We apply this new theory with a series of proof of concept cases for all the basic cancer types. These cases have been computationally modeled, their behavior simulated and mathematically described using a multicellular systems biology approach. There are fascinating correspondences between the dynamic developmental phenotype of computationally modeled {\em in silico} cancers and natural {\em in vivo} cancers. The theory lays the foundation for a new research paradigm for understanding and investigating cancer. The theory of cancer networks implies that new diagnostic methods

Embryology has long played a foundational role in shaping our scientific understanding of animal evolution. In recent decades, growing evidence has also highlighted its role in cancer. Despite the indisputable similarities between embryonic development and cancer, there has been limited discussion on the profound embryological implications for the disease. This article explores the understanding of cancer as an embryological and evolutionary phenomenon, offering a fresh perspective on the disease and discussing immediate consequences in the search for therapeutic approaches

Environmental and genetic mutations can transform the cells in a co-operating healthy tissue into an ecosystem of individualistic tumour cells that compete for space and resources. Various selection forces are responsible for driving the evolution of cells in a tumour towards more malignant and aggressive phenotypes that tend to have a fitness advantage over the older populations. Although the evolutionary nature of cancer has been recognised for more than three decades (ever since the seminal work of Nowell) it has been only recently that tools traditionally used by ecological and evolutionary researchers have been adopted to study the evolution of cancer phenotypes in populations of individuals capable of co-operation and competition. In this chapter we will describe game theory as an important tool to study the emergence of cell phenotypes in a tumour and will critically review some of its applications in cancer research. These applications demonstrate that game theory can be used to understand the dynamics of somatic cancer evolution and suggest new therapies in which this knowledge could be applied to gain some control over the evolution of the tumour.

Publication patterns of 79 forest scientists awarded major international forestry prizes during 1990-2010 were compared with the journal classification and ranking promoted as part of the 'Excellence in Research for Australia' (ERA) by the Australian Research Council. The data revealed that these scientists exhibited an elite publication performance during the decade before and two decades following their first major award. An analysis of their 1703 articles in 431 journals revealed substantial differences between the journal choices of these elite scientists and the ERA classification and ranking of journals. Implications from these findings are that additional cross-classifications should be added for many journals, and there should be an adjustment to the ranking of several journals relevant to the ERA Field of Research classified as 0705 Forestry Sciences.

In his recent paper published in the European Journal of Scientific Research 44, 4, 610-611 (2010), the author, Arthur Boltcho, claims to have found a mathematical disproof of relative time dilatation of Special Relativity Theory (SRT). In this letter we show that the supposed mathematical disproof of relative time dilatation of SRT is totally wrong and that Arthur Boltcho demonstrated nothing. The errors by Boltcho arise from a strong misunderstanding and confusing the concept of "moments" and time intervals in the framework of SRT.