814 research outputs found
Isolation, identification and continuous culture of coronary endothelial cells from guinea pig hearts
Universality of citation distributions revisited
Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano [arXiv:0806.0974, PNAS 105(45), 17268]
claim that, apart from a scaling factor, all fields of science are
characterized by the same citation distribution. We present a large-scale
validation study of this universality-of-citation-distributions claim. Our
analysis shows that claiming citation distributions to be universal for all
fields of science is not warranted. Although many fields indeed seem to have
fairly similar citation distributions, there are quite some exceptions as well.
We also briefly discuss the consequences of our findings for the measurement of
scientific impact using citation-based bibliometric indicators
Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research
Background: Citation analysis has become an important tool for research
performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of
medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even
within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent
citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between
research units active in different areas of medical research.
Methodology: A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals
differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The
methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection
of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical
field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each
other in their average citation impact.
Results: Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on
journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses
on three fields. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large
differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research
areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact
research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research.
Conclusions: Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the
impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between
medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate
between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do
correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field
heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of
clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in
comparison with basic and diagnostic research
Coherent control of plasma dynamics
Coherent control of a system involves steering an interaction to a final
coherent state by controlling the phase of an applied field. Plasmas support
coherent wave structures that can be generated by intense laser fields. Here,
we demonstrate the coherent control of plasma dynamics in a laser wakefield
electron acceleration experiment. A genetic algorithm is implemented using a
deformable mirror with the electron beam signal as feedback, which allows a
heuristic search for the optimal wavefront under laser-plasma conditions that
is not known a priori. We are able to improve both the electron beam charge and
angular distribution by an order of magnitude. These improvements do not simply
correlate with having the `best' focal spot, since the highest quality vacuum
focal spot produces a greatly inferior electron beam, but instead correspond to
the particular laser phase that steers the plasma wave to a final state with
optimal accelerating fields
Frizzled-8 integrates Wnt-11 and transforming growth factor-β signaling in prostate cancer
Wnt-11 promotes cancer cell migration and invasion independently of β-catenin but the receptors involved remain unknown. Here, we provide evidence that FZD8 is a major Wnt-11 receptor in prostate cancer that integrates Wnt-11 and TGF-β signals to promote EMT. FZD8 mRNA is upregulated in multiple prostate cancer datasets and in metastatic cancer cell lines in vitro and in vivo. Analysis of patient samples reveals increased levels of FZD8 in cancer, correlating with Wnt-11. FZD8 co-localizes and co-immunoprecipitates with Wnt-11 and potentiates Wnt-11 activation of ATF2-dependent transcription. FZD8 silencing reduces prostate cancer cell migration, invasion, three-dimensional (3D) organotypic cell growth, expression of EMT-related genes, and TGF-β/Smad-dependent signaling. Mechanistically, FZD8 forms a TGF-β-regulated complex with TGF-β receptors that is mediated by the extracellular domains of FZD8 and TGFBR1. Targeting FZD8 may therefore inhibit aberrant activation of both Wnt and TGF-β signals in prostate cancer
Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations
The crown indicator is a well-known bibliometric indicator of research
performance developed by our institute. The indicator aims to normalize
citation counts for differences among fields. We critically examine the
theoretical basis of the normalization mechanism applied in the crown
indicator. We also make a comparison with an alternative normalization
mechanism. The alternative mechanism turns out to have more satisfactory
properties than the mechanism applied in the crown indicator. In particular,
the alternative mechanism has a so-called consistency property. The mechanism
applied in the crown indicator lacks this important property. As a consequence
of our findings, we are currently moving towards a new crown indicator, which
relies on the alternative normalization mechanism
Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff
We reply to the criticism of Opthof and Leydesdorff [arXiv:1002.2769] on the
way in which our institute applies journal and field normalizations to citation
counts. We point out why we believe most of the criticism is unjustified, but
we also indicate where we think Opthof and Leydesdorff raise a valid point
Globalisation of science in kilometres
The ongoing globalisation of science has undisputedly a major impact on how
and where scientific research is being conducted nowadays. Yet, the big picture
remains blurred. It is largely unknown where this process is heading, and at
which rate. Which countries are leading or lagging? Many of its key features
are difficult if not impossible to capture in measurements and comparative
statistics. Our empirical study measures the extent and growth of scientific
globalisation in terms of physical distances between co-authoring researchers.
Our analysis, drawing on 21 million research publications across all countries
and fields of science, reveals that contemporary science has globalised at a
fairly steady rate during recent decades. The average collaboration distance
per publication has increased from 334 kilometres in 1980 to 1553 in 2009.
Despite significant differences in globalisation rates across countries and
fields of science, we observe a pervasive process in motion, moving towards a
truly interconnected global science system
- …