Browsing by Subject "Authorship"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    EndNote and Reference Manager Citation formats compared to "instructions to authors" in top medical journals
    (2006) Brahmi, Frances; Gall, Carole
    The study compared citation format in EndNote version 7 and Reference Manager version 11 with the citation format for references found in the instructions to authors from the most significant medical literature. The resulting information should be very useful to those who depend on citation management software to format and organize their references for publication in medicine, and librarians and others who teach the use of citation management software.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Enter Shakespeare’s Young Hamlet, 1589
    (Société Française Shakespeare, 2016-02-29) Bourus, Terri; Department of English, School of Liberal Arts
    This essay argues that Q1 Hamlet represents the earliest version of Shakespeare’s play, written in the late 1580s. The argument builds upon, and for the first time combines, evidence in Terri Bourus, Young Shakespeare’s Young Hamlet: Print, Piracy and Performance (2014) and Zachary Lesser, Hamlet After Q1 (2015). It concentrates on differences between Q1 and the later, expanded, canonical texts of the play, specifically in relation to the age of Hamlet and the Queen. It emphasizes that Hamlet’s age crucially affects the age, sexuality, and political importance of his mother (an issue ignored by male critics). Hamlet’s age has been a factor in performances of the play from Burbage and Betterton in the seventeenth century to 2015 productions of Q1. Why then did Harold Jenkins in 1982 dismiss the importance of Hamlet’s age? To contextualize Jenkins’ dismissal (founded on the principles of both New Criticism and New Bibliography), this essay traces scholarship on the age difference back to the 1870s. It focuses particularly on the conflict between two influential texts: A. C. Bradley’s Shakespearean Tragedy (1904) and L.C. Knight’s “How Many Children Had Lady Macbeth?” (1933). It also calls attention to neglected details of Thomas Nashe’s 1589 allusion to “whole Hamlets of tragical speaches”: these point to Shakespeare as the author of the 1580s play, and also to specific details found in Q1 but not present in Belleforest’s story of Amleth in Histoires Tragiques.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Gender and authorship of publications from Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI)
    (Frontiers Media, 2023-12-19) Jeyapalan, Asumthia S.; Brown, Stephanie R.; Gaspers, Mary G.; Haliani, Brittany; Kudchadkar, Sapna R.; Rowan, Courtney M.; Gertz, Shira J.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Introduction: Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) is a network fostering clinical research to optimize care for critically ill children. We aim to examine the efforts of the PALISI Network to increase gender parity in research, as evidenced by authorship. Methods: The first and senior authors of all published PALISI articles from 2002 to 2021 were analyzed for gender of presentation. Funding sources, impact factors, professional roles, and location were extracted. Results: We identified 303 articles, 61 published from 2002 to 2011, and 242 from 2012 to 2021. There were 302 first authors, representing 188 unique individuals, and 283 senior authors, representing 119 unique individuals. Over half (55.6%, n = 168) of the first authors were women. More women were first authors from 2012 to 2021 (n = 145, 60.2%) as compared to the years 2002-2011 [37.7%, n = 23, OR = 2.50 (95% CI: 1.40, 4.45, p = 0.002)]. Senior authors were 36.0% (n = 102) women, with no change over time. Women senior authors had a higher proportion of women first authors (67.7% vs. 32.4%, p = 0.017). No gender differences were noted based on article type or impact factor. The majority of authors came from institutions in the United States. Women had comparatively more NIH and CDC funding but received less funding from foundations and AHRQ. Discussion: In PALISI publications, first authorship by women has increased over time, such that it now exceeds both the proportion of women pediatric intensivists and women first authors in critical care publications. Senior authorship by women has been stagnant. A multifactorial approach by individuals, institutions, networks, and journals is needed to bring senior women authors to parity.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Gender of Authors in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science in 2 Peer-Reviewed U.S. Journals
    (American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 2022) Niemi, Steven M.; Hickman, Debra L.; Crisler, Robin; Laboratory Animal Resource Center, School of Medicine
    Multiple recent surveys have examined the prevalence of female first or senior authors on publications for various scientific and medical disciplines. First and senior authorships are significant achievements for purposes of professional advancement, especially in academia. Such surveys can also provide information regarding diversity and inclusion. In this report, we present the findings of a survey performed to assess how frequently female contributors were first or senior authors in 2 of the most widely-circulated peer-reviewed journals of laboratory animal medicine and science in the United States; data were collected at 3 time points over a recent 20-y span. These data were then compared against estimated populations of potential female authors, as determined from membership rolls in the American Society of Laboratory Animal Practitioners and the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. Survey results suggest that female authors increased their representation as influential authors over time, in contrast to representation trends reported for other disciplines. However, whether this increase has mirrored the increase in women overall in the veterinary profession during this time span is unknown. In an era of greater attention and sensitivity to equity and inclusion, this survey is offered as a starting point for further conversation within the field of laboratory animal medicine and science.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    “Here Lay My Hope": attribution, collaboration, and the authorship of the third addition to The Spanish Tragedy
    (2016-09-06) Cooper, Keegan; Bourus, Terri
    The authorship of the five additions to Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy remains a conundrum. Ben Jonson was first thought responsible, but a majority of scholars argue against his involvement. Other candidates have been proposed, namely Thomas Dekker, Thomas Heywood, William Shakespeare, and John Webster. Past attribution studies have mainly focused on Shakespeare due to the fourth addition, the Painter’s Scene, which has been perceived to exhibit Shakespearean quality. John Nance’s lexical study of the fourth addition makes a most compelling case: Shakespeare’s hand is almost certainly present. Warren Stevenson, Hugh Craig, Brian Vickers, and Douglas Bruster have also supported an attribution to Shakespeare; however, their research errs in assuming a single author wrote all five of the additions. This assumption is disproven by Gary Taylor’s work on the first addition, which is the first to identify Heywood, not Shakespeare, as its likely author. Taylor’s conclusion emphasizes that the additions could embody revisions by more than one playwright, such as in the case of Sir Thomas More. Therefore, the authorship of the other additions must remain conjectural until further study. My thesis is the first to independently explore the third addition’s authorship, and based on lexical evidence, the following analysis disproves claims of Shakespeare’s presence within the third addition.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Imagining the other: the possibilities and limits of the sympathetic imagination in J.M. Coetzee's recent fiction
    (2011-11-18) Caldwell, Christine Sego; Hoegberg, David Erick; Schultz, Jane E.; Springer, Jennifer Thorington
    In three of J. M. Coetzee’s recent novels, Disgrace (1999), Elizabeth Costello (2003), and Slow Man (2005), the South African author explores notions of authorship and challenges the possibilities of the sympathetic imagination. The notion of the sympathetic imagination has roots in Romanticism, and it connotes inhabiting another in order to understand or interpret. Romantic poet John Keats described the poet as “continually in for [sic] and filling some other body” (Letter to Richard Woodhouse), and Coetzee addresses the notion of the sympathetic imagination in his work. There are two facets of the sympathetic imagination: that which governs social relations and that which authors and creative minds attempt to claim as a driving force behind their work. It is important not to conflate the two separate facets of the sympathetic imagination. The social facet encourages good citizenship and allows humankind to behave in humane ways. It counters one’s private desire for mastery and balances self-interest with self-sacrifice; the sympathetic imagination helps others attain their goals and places others’ needs alongside one’s own selfishness. A sympathetic imagination is an essential quality in society, yet it will always yield only partial success. It cannot achieve complete success because truly inhabiting and embodying another living person is simply impossible, but in fiction, Coetzee explores the possibilities and limits of the sympathetic imagination at the level of language and metaphor. The other facet of the sympathetic imagination is often claimed by authors, poets, and artists to allow them to inhabit the subjects of their creativity. Coetzee tests the limits of authorial claims that writing is accomplished by applying a sympathetic imagination. In doing so, he creates metaphysical frames in which his own author-characters interact with other characters to reveal that some characters resist being written. In these metaphysical frames of fiction, Coetzee suggests that an author’s sympathetic imagination will never have total success; he sets forth a notion of partial success that helps address what is gained when the sympathetic imagination runs up against limits. My argument is that the authors and characters in these three novels attempt acts of sympathetic imagination and recurrently encounter limits. Coetzee questions perceived notions of authorship and the possibilities of the sympathetic imagination without offering alternatives. He critiques common notions of authorship and character writing but offers no real solutions.