Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • Martin and Irvine draw a distinction

    2018-11-07

    Martin and Irvine (1983) draw a distinction among the concepts of the “quality”, “importance” and “impact” of a publication. They argue that these concepts cannot be directly measured, i.e. the number of citations a publication receives does not directly reflect its quality or importance, but rather serves as a partial indicator of its impact. Other factors which can affect the number of citations a publication receives include the location of the author, her prestige within the scientific community, the language the document was published and the availability of the journal it purchase phenylephrine hydrochloride appears in. Finally, structural or relational indicators measure the connections among publications, authors or fields of research (Durieux and Gevenois, 2010). These indicators are widely used in the literature, especially in the bibliometric analysis of co-authorship and co-citation. Co-citation analysis typically presents a network in which authors’ most frequently cited documents are connected through co-citation links. Relational indicators are used to map knowledge structures and networks among authors, documents, institutions and countries. This allows us to identify partnerships among institutions or authors and to show the connections among topics or research areas, or even identify emerging topics in a field (Lima et al., 2010; Okubo, 1997; Gauthier, 1998). Co-citation analysis is one of the quantitative methods widely used to create networks, identifying specific structural frameworks in the field of research. These frameworks can be evaluated by author co-citation analysis (ACA) or document co-citation analysis (DCA) (White and Griffith, 1981). Small (1973) defines co-citation analysis as the frequency two documents are cited in the literature together by a subsequent document. He goes on to argue that when publications are frequently co-cited they are, invariably, cited even more frequently individually. As such, they tend to represent the concepts, methods or key experiments in a field of knowledge. Thus, co-citation patterns can be used to map the relationships among these key concepts. White and Griffith (1981) suggest mapping an area of knowledge by using the authors as the unit of analysis and the co-citations of pairs of authors as variables which measure the relationship between them. That is, the more frequently two authors are cited together, the greater the relationship between them.
    Methodology
    Results of the bibliometric analysis
    Final considerations
    Introduction In parallel, in Brazil, the important process of reform of its budget institutions can be observed, particularly at the federal level, which was initiated in the 1980s in the context of accelerating inflation, high government deficit and high debt and which changed the institutions of the Military Government. The budget process of the military period, established with the Plan of Economic Action of the Government (Plano de Ação Econômica do Governo – PAEG) and the other reforms undertaken between 1964 and 1967, was marked by three distinct budgets – the fiscal, monetary and state-owned companies budgets – by the centralisation of decision making within the Executive, by the lack of transparency in the decision-making process and by the lack of a comprehensive structure of external control. Moreover, this process was based on a financial arrangement that unified the National Treasury, the Central Bank and the Bank of Brazil: the conta movimento, a bank account that represented a simple and flexible tool for the execution of orders of the National Monetary Council (Conselho Monetário Nacional – CMN). The results were mechanisms that provided a lack of control of public expenditures. The reforms implemented since 1986 have sought to dismantle these mechanisms, with the separation of the three institutions and the unification process of the federal budgets, and have initiated the changes that led to a new budget process, whose turning point was the 1988 Constitution. It is noteworthy that this new budget process was not established immediately. The changes performed by the Constitution, through introducing the Multiyear Plan (Plano Plurianual – PPA), the Budget Guidelines Laws (Leis de Diretrizes Orçamentárias – LDO), the Annual Budget Law (Lei do Orçamento Anual – LOA) and the other budget rules, form the main structure of the process. However, its current format is the result of both institutional changes made at the beginning of the New Republic, between 1986 and1988, and the changes in the 1990s and 2000s, such as changes in the internal control system of the Federal Government and the Fiscal Responsibility Law (Lei de Responsabilidade Fiscal – LRF).