Authorship as cultural performance: new perspectives in authorship studies

This article proposes a performative model of authorship, based on the historical alternation between predominantly 'weak' and 'strong' author concepts and related practices of writing, publication and reading. Based on this model, we give a brief overview of the historical development of such author concepts in English literature from the Middle Ages to the twentieth century. We argue for a more holistic approach to authorship within a cultural topography, comprising social contexts, technological and media factors, and other cultural developments, such as the distinction between privacy and the public sphere

Text Classification For Authorship Attribution Analysis

Authorship attribution mainly deals with undecided authorship of literary texts. Authorship attribution is useful in resolving issues like uncertain authorship, recognize authorship of unknown texts, spot plagiarism so on. Statistical methods can be used to set apart the approach of an author numerically. The basic methodologies that are made use in computational stylometry are word length, sentence length, vocabulary affluence, frequencies etc. Each author has an inborn style of writing, which is particular to himself. Statistical quantitative techniques can be used to differentiate the approach of an author in a numerical way. The problem can be broken down into three sub problems as author identification, author characterization and similarity detection. The steps involved are pre-processing, extracting features, classification and author identification. For this different classifiers can be used. Here fuzzy learning classifier and SVM are used. After author identification the SVM was found to have more accuracy than Fuzzy classifier. Later combined the classifiers to obtain a better accuracy when compared to individual SVM and fuzzy classifier.Comment: 10 page

CEAI: CCM based Email Authorship Identification Model

In this paper we present a model for email authorship identification (EAI) by employing a Cluster-based Classification (CCM) technique. Traditionally, stylometric features have been successfully employed in various authorship analysis tasks; we extend the traditional feature-set to include some more interesting and effective features for email authorship identification (e.g. the last punctuation mark used in an email, the tendency of an author to use capitalization at the start of an email, or the punctuation after a greeting or farewell). We also included Info Gain feature selection based content features. It is observed that the use of such features in the authorship identification process has a positive impact on the accuracy of the authorship identification task. We performed experiments to justify our arguments and compared the results with other base line models. Experimental results reveal that the proposed CCM-based email authorship identification model, along with the proposed feature set, outperforms the state-of-the-art support vector machine (SVM)-based models, as well as the models proposed by Iqbal et al. [1, 2]. The proposed model attains an accuracy rate of 94% for 10 authors, 89% for 25 authors, and 81% for 50 authors, respectively on Enron dataset, while 89.5% accuracy has been achieved on authors' constructed real email dataset. The results on Enron dataset have been achieved on quite a large number of authors as compared to the models proposed by Iqbal et al. [1, 2]

Gender Trends in Dental Leadership and Academics: A Twenty-Two-Year Observation

The purpose of this study was to examine gender disparities in dental leadership and academics in the United States. Nine journals that represent the dental specialties and high published impact factors were selected to analyze the percentage of female dentists’ first and senior authorship for the years 1986, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2008. Data on appointment status and female deanship were collected from the American Dental Association (ADA) survey, and the trends were studied. The proportion of female presidents in ADA-recognized specialty organizations was also calculated. Overall, the increase in first female authorship was not statistically significant, but the increase of last female authorship was statistically significant in a linear trend over the years. The percentage of tenured female faculty members and female deans in U.S. dental schools increased by factors of 1.7 and 9, respectively, during the study period. However, female involvement in professional organizations was limited. Findings from this study indicate that female participation in authorship and leadership has increased over time. Nevertheless, females are still a minority in dental academics and leadership

Fighting Authorship Linkability with Crowdsourcing

Massive amounts of contributed content -- including traditional literature, blogs, music, videos, reviews and tweets -- are available on the Internet today, with authors numbering in many millions. Textual information, such as product or service reviews, is an important and increasingly popular type of content that is being used as a foundation of many trendy community-based reviewing sites, such as TripAdvisor and Yelp. Some recent results have shown that, due partly to their specialized/topical nature, sets of reviews authored by the same person are readily linkable based on simple stylometric features. In practice, this means that individuals who author more than a few reviews under different accounts (whether within one site or across multiple sites) can be linked, which represents a significant loss of privacy. In this paper, we start by showing that the problem is actually worse than previously believed. We then explore ways to mitigate authorship linkability in community-based reviewing. We first attempt to harness the global power of crowdsourcing by engaging random strangers into the process of re-writing reviews. As our empirical results (obtained from Amazon Mechanical Turk) clearly demonstrate, crowdsourcing yields impressively sensible reviews that reflect sufficiently different stylometric characteristics such that prior stylometric linkability techniques become largely ineffective. We also consider using machine translation to automatically re-write reviews. Contrary to what was previously believed, our results show that translation decreases authorship linkability as the number of intermediate languages grows. Finally, we explore the combination of crowdsourcing and machine translation and report on the results

The Environmental Implications of Redistributive Land Reform

Acknowledgements Thank you to the two anonymous referees who commented on this piece. Conflict of interest The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.Peer reviewedPostprin

Measuring co-authorship and networking-adjusted scientific impact

Appraisal of the scientific impact of researchers, teams and institutions with productivity and citation metrics has major repercussions. Funding and promotion of individuals and survival of teams and institutions depend on publications and citations. In this competitive environment, the number of authors per paper is increasing and apparently some co-authors don't satisfy authorship criteria. Listing of individual contributions is still sporadic and also open to manipulation. Metrics are needed to measure the networking intensity for a single scientist or group of scientists accounting for patterns of co-authorship. Here, I define I1 for a single scientist as the number of authors who appear in at least I1 papers of the specific scientist. For a group of scientists or institution, In is defined as the number of authors who appear in at least In papers that bear the affiliation of the group or institution. I1 depends on the number of papers authored Np. The power exponent R of the relationship between I1 and Np categorizes scientists as solitary (R>2.5), nuclear (R=2.25-2.5), networked (R=2-2.25), extensively networked (R=1.75-2) or collaborators (R<1.75). R may be used to adjust for co-authorship networking the citation impact of a scientist. In similarly provides a simple measure of the effective networking size to adjust the citation impact of groups or institutions. Empirical data are provided for single scientists and institutions for the proposed metrics. Cautious adoption of adjustments for co-authorship and networking in scientific appraisals may offer incentives for more accountable co-authorship behaviour in published articles.Comment: 25 pages, 5 figure