Examining Undergraduate Communication Degree Programs: Mission Statements, Assessment Plans, and Assessment Evaluations

One hundred undergraduate communication programs listed in the NCA directory were examined in this investigation. The process involved gathering the university mission statement, departmental mission statement, program assessment plan, and program assessment evaluations. Results demonstrate that 98 institutions utilized mission statements, 81 departments provided mission statements, 18 departments made assessment plans available and the researchers obtained 4 assessment evaluations

Evaluation Communication of Master\u27s Program On the Basis of Google Citations

This paper provides an assessment of Master’s degree programs and faculty research in Communication departments using citations available in Google Scholar. Identification of the Master’s degree programs relied on the National Communication Association website. Individual faculty were identified from the web page of the department for the institution. The combined number of citations to faculty publications identifies the top five departments (University of Alabama-Birmingham, California State University-Fullerton, University of Colorado-Colorado Springs, Cleveland State University, and California State University- Long Beach) and the top five most cited faculty members (Stella Ting-Toomey, Virginia Richmond, George Cheney, Kimberly Neuendorf, and Brian Spitzberg). The overall set of information provides useful insights for the expectations for Master’s program faculty productivity

Comparing Communication Doctoral Programs, Alumni, and Faculty: The Use of Google Scholar

This paper examines three aspects of doctoral programs in Communication: (a) how doctoral department faculty compare using combined citations to published work using Google Scholar, (b) the contribution in quantity and quality (measured by citations) of alumni teaching in doctoral programs, and (c) identifying the top 25 most cited communication doctoral faculty in Google Scholar. The goal is to provide a series of additional alternatives for faculty and program evaluation beyond simply counting the number of published journal articles

Citation count distributions for large monodisciplinary journals

Many different citation-based indicators are used by researchers and research evaluators to help evaluate the impact of scholarly outputs. Although the appropriateness of individual citation indicators depends in part on the statistical properties of citation counts, there is no universally agreed best-fitting statistical distribution against which to check them. The two current leading candidates are the discretised lognormal and the hooked or shifted power law. These have been mainly tested on sets of articles from a single field and year but these collections can include multiple specialisms that might dilute their properties. This article fits statistical distributions to 50 large subject-specific journals in the belief that individual journals can be purer than subject categories and may therefore give clearer findings. The results show that in most cases the discretised lognormal fits significantly better than the hooked power law, reversing previous findings for entire subcategories. This suggests that the discretised lognormal is the more appropriate distribution for modelling pure citation data. Thus, future analytical investigations of the properties of citation indicators can use the lognormal distribution to analyse their basic properties. This article also includes improved software for fitting the hooked power law

Long term productivity and collaboration in information science

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in Scientometrics on 02/07/2016, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2061-8 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Funding bodies have tended to encourage collaborative research because it is generally more highly cited than sole author research. But higher mean citation for collaborative articles does not imply collaborative researchers are in general more research productive. This article assesses the extent to which research productivity varies with the number of collaborative partners for long term researchers within three Web of Science subject areas: Information Science & Library Science, Communication and Medical Informatics. When using the whole number counting system, researchers who worked in groups of 2 or 3 were generally the most productive, in terms of producing the most papers and citations. However, when using fractional counting, researchers who worked in groups of 1 or 2 were generally the most productive. The findings need to be interpreted cautiously, however, because authors that produce few academic articles within a field may publish in other fields or leave academia and contribute to society in other ways

Being careful what we wish for? Challenges and opportunities afforded through engagement with business and management research

Despite the proliferation of work within construction management that draws upon management and organizational theory, two omissions stand out from the body of published work: the absence of any real debate about the values of rigour and relevance in research; and the under-use of dominant perspectives in business and management research (such as institutional theory) to frame construction management and organizational issues. Drawing specifically upon the ideas of institutional logics and institutional work, this paper explores the tensions, ironies and contradictions of the rigour-relevance debate; and the challenges and opportunities facing construction management research (CMR) and its institutions in furthering management and organizational research agendas. In doing so, attention is directed to the complex, contested and changing nature of the knowledge base within the business and management field; as well as key differences between that community of practice and CMR

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU

Plant perception of β-aminobutyric acid is mediated by an aspartyl-tRNA synthetase

Specific chemicals can prime the plant immune system for augmented defense. β-aminobutyric acid (BABA) is a priming agent that provides broad-spectrum disease protection. However, BABA also suppresses plant growth when applied in high doses, which has hampered its application as a crop defense activator. Here we describe a mutant of Arabidopsis thaliana that is impaired in BABA-induced disease immunity (ibi1) but is hypersensitive to BABA-induced growth repression. IBI1 encodes an aspartyl-tRNA synthetase. Enantiomer-specific binding of the R enantiomer of BABA to IBI1 primed the protein for noncanonical defense signaling in the cytoplasm after pathogen attack. This priming was associated with aspartic acid accumulation and tRNA-induced phosphorylation of translation initiation factor eIF2α. However, mutation of eIF2α-phosphorylating GCN2 kinase did not affect BABA-induced immunity but relieved BABA-induced growth repression. Hence, BABA-activated IBI1 controls plant immunity and growth via separate pathways. Our results open new opportunities to separate broad-spectrum disease resistance from the associated costs on plant growth