References Farzan, R., DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Dugan, C., Geyer, W., and Brownholtz, E. A. (2008). Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 563–572. Landers, R. N., & Landers, A. K. (2015). An empirical test of the theory of gamified learning the effect of leaderboards on time-on-task and academic performance. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 769-785. Vandercruysse, S., Vandewaetere, M., & Clarebout, G. (2012). Game-based learning: A review on the effectiveness of educational games. In M. M. Cruz-Cunha (Ed.), Handbook of research on serious games as educational, business, and research tools (pp. 628–647). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

The importance of gamification in human resources Top Gamification Statistics of 2020: Next Level Gaming The Influences of Emotion on Learning and Memory IS GAMIFICATION EFFECTIVE: THE NEUROSCIENCE OF GAMIFICATION IN ONLINE LEARNING Game-Based Learning vs Gamification 10 Examples of Gamification for Employee Engagement 25 Insightful Gamification Stats, Facts, & Trends for 2020 HOW DOES GAMIFICATION AFFECT THE LEARNING PROCESS?

Ryersson, Scot D.; Michael Orlando Yaccarino

In 1895, the Belgians Paul Otlet (1868-1944) and Henri La Fontaine founded the International Institute of Bibliography (IIB) and began working on something they called the Universal Bibliographic Repertory (UBR), an enormous catalog based on index cards. Funded by the Belgian government, the UBR involved the collection of books, articles, photographs and other documents in order to create a one-of-a-kind international index.

All this bears little resemblance to modern literary ideals, in which the author is constructed somewhat heroically as an individual creative source.

Gessner, however, examines every single book meticulously to gather complete specifi cations of format, title, authors (provided they are named or discoverable), place of publica-tion, and year of publication. 7 Then he appends a content description. Hence, Konrad Gessner can rightly count as the father of the modern bibliography.

115 results found

The dominion of man over animal that this naming manifests thus comes before original sin and the Fall,6

Balancing out difficulties with human communication, Grandin has recently popular- ized the notion that ASDs can produce a special understanding of animal consciousness and contribute to enhanced interspecies communication.

The disappearance of other species with whom the lives of humans were formerly intertwined increasingly impoverishes our worlds. We lack what Lingis would consider essential emotional teachers. We know our pets. We know zoos; nature films; anthropomorphic fiction, film, and art; toys; cartoons

Only three interview subjects talked to me about their own erotic investment in the fandom, but I suspect that many others were more interested in having fun at FWA than in talk- ing to me about their sex lives. Although my official escort soon left me to proceed on my own, a few people approached me between interviews to make sure I was not up to anything objectionable. The most interesting of these was a graduate student in performance studies whom I met only in full fursuit and who checked my credentials with his major professor, an old friend of mine. I hope that this young scholar and amazing fur-suit dancer - he won the contest - will write about the fandom

This encounter then came to mind during a smaller conference the following spring when Tony Kubiak spoke of the recent creation of a chimeric human-cat protein intended to block allergic reactions (in humans).6

Because expenses and dynamics became unworkable for this interesting household, Cat was asked to move out later that summer. A

e surger- ies took longer to arrange. Steve Haworth of Phoenix, who describes himself as a "body modification and human evolution artist," did most of them: pointing his ears, reshaping his cheeks and forehead with silicone implants, moving his nasal septum, cleaving his upper lip, replacing his teeth with feline dentures.1 T

192 / Maria Carlson Figure 1. Stalking Cat. he perceives as spiritual to all feline species but particularly to tigers, and he says that his modification simply uses technology to accomplish a sort of transformation long- practiced among his Huron and Lakota ancestors

It took only a couple decades for the internet to transform from a weird underground hobby to an entirely new medium for the self. One of the earliest draws of internet society was the invitation to become someone else — to obscure the dull strains of your real life behind a veil of mysterious text or behind an avatar, the image or persona you create to represent you online. In those days, it often seemed like people had collectively assented to participate in some degree of fiction about one another. The person on your forum or in your channel who loved to say inflammatory things was just some troll; you could even assume that he wasn’t like that in real life. That these were only mechanisms specific to the character he lived as online.

The furries are kind of like the new age Native American where they have the spirit animal or connection, or like, they take on that personal animal. . . . And whatever you put on, [you] take on those characters [and] aspects, and, for some people with social stigma who can’t interact, they put on the suit and they’re a completely different person.

Furries are in the perilous position of having their interests form an integral part of their identity while simultaneously experiencing stigmatization from the world around them. For many, the fandom is their only source of social interaction and social support.

A small subset of furries, called “therians,” go beyond the interest in developing a fursona and believe they are spiritually connected to animals, are less than 100 per-cent human, are an animal trapped in a human body, or were an animal in a former life (Gerbasi et al., 2008).

She states that furry participants might identify as less than 100% human for reasons that she felt included, “not the least having a hangover from furry drinks the night before.” While it may be an attempt at humor, we find this comment to be egregiously offensive, derogatory, and insulting to the furry fandom and our participants. Ironically, this remark illustrates her subscription to the very stereotypes we were empirically testing and con-firms the necessity of our research.

Popular media provided the only available information (Stahl & Lewis, 2003; Gurley, 2001), which suggested that furries had interests in zoomorphism and anthropomor-phism. These media portrayals were resoundingly unfavorable toward furries and empirically unfounded.

Her focus on gender identity disorder misses the main point of the study, which was that it was the first empirical study to collect data scientifically and report find-ings on the furry fandom, an often misrepresented subculture.

Why so FURious? Rebuttal of Dr. Fiona Probyn-Rapsey’s Response to Gerbasi et al.’s “Furries from A to Z (Anthropomorphism to Zoomorphism)”

Open Access Explained!, an 8-minute animated video from PHD Comics.

A Bibliography

Here the diagnosis slips from requiring both being “less than 100% human” and “being 0% human” to only requiring the first criterion—being “less than 100% human.” The implications of this rhetorical slip are a vast shift in proportion, since it triples the number of furries who are potentially diagnosable as having species identity disorder (from 31 to 99 [or 46%] of the 214 furries who answered).

The data on personality disorders showed that furries were less likely to judge other furries as disordered, while the control group (the psychology students) judged other college students “significantly more often” along the lines of personality trait disorders. That the control group was made up of psychology students is perhaps an important factor here; this group may display an increased sensi-tivity to normative behaviors and “disorder.”

Species identity disorder is modeled on gender identity disorder, itself a highly controversial diagnosis that has been criticized for pathol-ogizing homosexuality and transgendered people.

That signified a total restructuring of my life, even to the point where the old character I had inhabited, a red fox with two tails, the tips of which were dyed green, no longer applied. It was high-school-me. It was me-growing-up. It is not me now.

the face-first pouncing of foxes

Discussion along these lines continued after the panel itself, as a few of the attendees convinced me to head out to dinner rather than straight up to bed (thanks for that, it was the first real meal of the day)

I began by asking the room full of furries why they chose the animal they did for their species, and I received a lot of answers that fit in well with my experience of the fandom. Notable among the explanations were the oft-used words 'identity', 'connection', 'personality', and 'characteristics'. And this, of course makes sense. Many introductions to furry, whether they're websites (the first introductory website I found was Captain Packrat's explanation of FurCodes) or friends, explain that although furry is about being a fan of anthropomorphism in general, it often (but not always) specifically involves a personal connection with an animal that leads to the creation of a personal character: an avatar often used in interaction with other furries.

I took this as an almost alchemical act. After all, alchemy is more than just transmuting literal lead into literal gold. It's the transmutation of a base substance into something better. Through calcination and dissolution, the base - the *prima materia*, the self, the fox - is broken down. Through separation, conjunction, and fermentation, something new is compiled from what was in rough shapes. Through distillation and coagulation, the new self - the cat - is solidified, completed, made whole. As with a lot of how I experience furry, this is a microcosm, rather than something unique. I am not the only one to be deliberate about changing my species, just as I'm not the only one to read way too much into the furry fandom. Furry, as a whole, is an exercise in self-actualization. It is taking the idea of "this is how I want to be seen" to places and extents not often tread. Through each aspect of ourselves, we choose how we want to interact. We choose a species, we choose a name, we choose what aspects of our personalities to show to each other and the world. We construct and create every day of our lives, and we're made all the better for it. Shameless boosterism aside, we're good at what we do and what we make, whether that's art or fun or just ourselves. The more we create, the better we get at it, too. All that's left to do is to keep on creating, to keep putting our intent and our will to work. Just as I can dig into the intent behind changing a name, a fursona, an identity, I can look for the magic of self-actualization within furry as a whole. After all, furry is magic.

As I mentioned back in...oh jeez, 2013 was really five years ago!? As I mentioned half a decade back, a change in species or character often happens around large life changes, and I'm no different. The process of death and rebirth that goes along with this surgery, where I die - hopefully metaphorically - on the table and am reborn, changed, is no small feat. So it was that, shortly after my surgery consult back in 2016, I got the idea to start interacting with friends as something other than an arctic fox. More and more, I started appearing as a snow leopard (because I couldn't seem to let go of those wintry species). At first, it was an 'alt' situation: Maddy, as the snow leopard was called, was an alternate character to use when I wasn't feeling the fox. Art by Grey White She was different from the 'usual' in a few ways. She's cis, for one, unlike the arctic fox, who transitioned along with me. She's shorter and a bit pudgier than I am. She's happier and struggles less with mental health. She's an ideal rather than a reality, and something to be played for fun. Or, well, she was. This 'alt' phase lasted a few months, I suppose, before I woke up one morning and realized I'd not interacted as an arctic fox in a few days. Slowly but surely, the snow leopard had started to overtake the fox.

Magic, as they say, is nothing more than an act of intent. It is "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will," if one is to believe Crowley (not necessarily recommended). In this sense, if spells are acts of intent, then coming up with spells is the act of defining one's intentions. In this sense, magic is living deliberately.

HornetsHornets are biologically not bees in nature, but in the Queen Bees’ Beehive, they slightly qualify as a bee. Although hornets have the ability to be bees, they are a bit dysfunctional and a pest to the Beehive. These insects always want something from the Queen Bee. They are “horny” for her do something new and different. All bees experience this feeling once and a while, but they move on from their desires. Hornets however, will not stop buzzing about what they want. They complain too much. These are the type of bees that are easy to be stung within the Beehive. Once they are stung, they will try to sting back, but their stinger is weak because it is not nourished with appreciation of all that the Queen Bee does.

The Yellow JacketsYellow jackets are NOT real bees at all. In fact, these insects are seasonal. Whenever the Queen Bee releases new honey, the yellow jackets will quickly throw their “bee jacket” on and sneak into the Beehive to enjoy her honey for the festive season. However, when the season is over, these insects will throw away the jacket for the Queen Bee and slip on another jacket, buzzing for the next current hottest critter. These insects sting whenever they are put on the spot about their jumpy behavior. Although they sting, it isn’t painful. No sting is painful if it’s not from a true bee.

“bookish girls tend to mark phases of their lives by periods of intense literary character identification”

Indexed the proceedings for Hypertext '87, '91, '93, and ECHT '94 conferences. Currently am creating a global index and hypertext for all the SigWeb (formerly SigLink) hypertext conferences since 1987

Footnotes and bibliographiesbeing the expression of democracy in the tex

The Battle Of Cable Street Sunday 4th October 1936

Hidden London: The Real Battle of Cable Street

The history of Open Education – a timeline and bibliography

I have for several weeks now been playing around with a multipaned browser and some php and javascripts in an attempt to tie PS into a usable patchwork. PS3x5 (working name ;) is analogous to taking notes on 3x5 cards. 1. Do your research. 2. Take notes and bibliography info on your 3x5s. 3. Sort, reorder, toss, the 3x5s to create your outline. 4. Write "stuff" to fill in between the 3x5s.    (04) Granular links remain in the finished document. All done in the context of a browser.

“Aimé Césaire: Bibliographie”

Thebeliefinsomethingcalled‘thecrisisofthemonograph’isoftenvoicedbutnotgreatlyexamined.

Earlier studies A number of previous studies, both snapshots and some with longitudinal elements, have shed light on different aspects of such type of journals, which for short we will call “indie” journals.

hmed, Maurana, Engle,Uddin, & Glaus (1997)

However, a diverse body of work on thesocially situated nature of scientific communication alreadyexists which points the way. This ranges from Crane’s(1969) pioneering analyses of invisible colleges throughLatour and Woolgar’s (1979) classic study of laboratory lifeat the Salk Institute to Traweek’s (1992) richly texturedethnography of the HEP community. In addition, the workof Schatz and colleagues on the Worm Community Systemproject, which was designed to capture the full range ofknowledge, formal and informal, of the community of mo-lecular biologists who study the nematode worm C. elegans(see: http://www.canis.uiuc.edu/projects/wcs/index.html)can provide useful insights; so, too, research into the mate-rial practices and social interactions of scientists working incollaboratories, such as the Upper Atmospheric ResearchCollaboratory (see: http://intel.si.umich.edu/crew/Research/resrch08.htm) or the Space, Physics & Aeronomy ResearchCollaboratory (see: http://intel.si.umich.edu/sparc/) at theUniversity of Michigan

The answer probably has to do with the relative intensityof socialization and oral communication (Traweek, 1992,pp. 120 –123), along with the character of the organizationalstructures and value systems, which define collaborations inlarge-scale, high-energy physics and biomedical research.

owever, it isimportant to distinguish between generic job categories andthe specification of tasks performed; the contributorshipmodel is designed to record each individual’s actual input(e.g., experimental design, data collection, statistical analy-sis, final article revision), not job title (e.g., coprincipalinvestigator, technician, systems analyst), since the lattermay on occasion mask or inflate the former (Stern, 2000).

Rennie, Yank, andEmanuel (1997) that the distinction between the two modesof credit allocation is inherently artificial. Consequently,they have argued for explicit description of all individualcontributions as a means of eliminating ambiguity. Such aproposal would remove both authorship and acknowledg-ment from the frame, a really quite significant break withscholarly publishing tradition. This alternative amounts to aradical model of authorship attribution in contrast to thestandard model

Some journals place a limit on the numberof coauthors; for example, theDutch Journal of Medicinedoes not publish articles with more than six authors (Hoenet al., 1998).

“sub-authorship collaboration” (Patel, 1973, p. 81),

twe should not assume too much in terms of common un-derstandings: the dividing line between the two classifica-tions, author and acknowledgee, is neither universally ap-preciated nor consistently applied. Cronin (1995, pp. 85–86), for instance, has shown that interpretative disputes arenot uncommon, and that some researchers feel that theyhave been denied their just deserts by being downgradedfrom coauthor to acknowledgee. A

Slone (1996), in a survey of “major research” articlespublished in theAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, foundthat undeserved coauthorship rose from 9% on papers withthree coauthors to 30% on papers with more than six coau-thors.

Flanagin et al.(1998) developed a multivariate logistic regression model totest the hypothesis that coauthored articles (operationalizedas papers with six or more authors) were increasing at a rategreater than would be expected when confounding vari-ables, such as the number of centers, were taken into ac-count. They found that 19% of original research reports hadhonorific authors, individuals who were garnering phantomfodder for their curricula vitae. They also discovered that11% of articles had ghost authors, which means that quite afew individuals were not receiving due credit for theircreative or material contributions to the research process—“the ghostly inferred hosts of unnamed actors who shiftedinstruments about and exerted their muscular labor’(Shapin, 1995, p. 379). Their findings, based on surveys ofcorresponding authors, are in keeping with other estimatesof honorific authorship in the biomedical literature.

norificauthorship and data integrity, seem to be of especial concernto the biomedical community, given widespread media cov-erage of, and speculation about, fraudulent practice, theeffects of which, in both career and personal terms, can bedevastating (e.g., Kevles, 1998).

n the realm of periodical publications,the sovereignty of the standard model is being most hotlycontested in biomedical research fields, where intense levelsof professional collaboration and coauthorship are common-place (Croll, 1984; Rennie & Flanagin, 1994; Rennie, Yank,& Emanuel, 1997; Rennie & Yank, 1998; King, 2000).Proposals for reform, which seek to retire the concept ofauthorship and replace it with a scheme for the allocation ofspecific, task- or job-related credits (e.g., Squires, 1996;Smith, 1997) are not only being debated by editors andothers, but are being adopted by leading scientific journal

Rennie’s and Flanagin’s (1994, p. 469) beguilingly simplequestion: “. . . how many people can wield one pen?” S

Some medical commentators (Rennie, Yank, &Emanuel, 1997, p. 582) have advocated abandoning theconcept of author altogether in favor of ‘contributors’ and‘guarantors,’ thereby freeing us “from the historical andemotional connotations of authorship.”

ouble-blind) peer review became an established component of thepost-war scientific bureaucracy (Chubin & Hackett, 1990,pp. 19 –24)

e well-estab-lished “conventions of impersonality” in scientific writing(Hyland, 1999, p. 355) and resulting in the erasure of styl

s not still common prac-tice in fields such as philosophy or women’s studies (Cro-nin, Davenport, & Martinson, 1997). By way of example,Endersby (1996) has analyzed trends in, and reasons for,collaboration and multiple authorship in the social sciences.Patel (1973) has described the growth of coauthorship insociological journals for the period 1895 to 1965. Bird(1997) has found evidence of coauthorship growth in theliterature of marine mammal science (1985–1993), whileKoehler et al. (1999) found that the average number ofauthors per article in theJournal of the American Society forInformation Science(previouslyAmerican Documentation)rose from approximately 1.2 in the 1950s to 1.8 in the1990s

Beaver and Rosen (1978) have shown how the differentialrates of scientific institutionalization in France, England,and Germany are mirrored in the relative output of coau-thored papers.

iking increase inrates of coauthorship, though the latter is only a partialindicator of the former: coauthorship and collaboration arenot coextensive (Katz & Martin, 1997, p. 1). This trend ismost noticeable in experimental high-energy physics(HEP), with its often very large teams and highly sophisti-cated collaborations (Kling & McKim, 2000). A similartrend, dating from the 1990s, can be seen in the biomedicalresearch literature, particularly with regard to publicationsarising from large, multi-institutional clinical trials (Rennie,Yank, & Emanuel, 1997; Horton, 1998). H

o some extent, authorship has becomea collective activity, with numerous coauthors competingfor the byline, some of whom may not have written, strictlyspeaking, a single word of the associated work (McDonald,1995; Kassirer & Angell, 1991).

hapin (1995,p. 178) notes in his brilliant study of trust in 17th-centuryEnglish science,

As Katzen (1980, p. 191) notes in heranalysis of early volumes of thePhilosophical Transac-tions:. . . no attempt is made to give prominence to the author ofthe article . . . there is generally no reference at all to theauthor in the heading that signals a new communication. Ifthe author is referred to in the title, it is likely to be in anoblique form . . . we are at the threshold between anony-mous and eponymous authorship

s Rennie and Flanagin(1994) remind us, there is no standard method for determin-ing order, nor any universalistic criteria for conferring au-thorship status:

Foucault,1977,p.125

Manguel(1997,pp.182–183)

lphabetization through weightedlisting to reverse seniority (e.g., Spiegel & Keith-Spiegel,1970; Riesenberg & Lundberg, 1990).

most systems try to adapt the paper-and-pen paradigm to the digital world. That’s why many systems suffer from several shortcomings inherent in the paper-and-pen paradigm.

The growth in web-based learning materials and information sources has created requirement for systems that allow annotations to be attached to these new sources and, potentially, shared with other learners.

Harter's (1978) finding that expectation of letter grades affected children's task motivation in ways similar to the various extrinsic rewards used in other stud- ies

White (1984, cited by Vaughan, 1991) reported on a study conducted at California State University in which two essays were tucked into a huge sample of essays and read a year apart by the same readers using a 6-point scale. The reading a year later produced scores that were identical to the first in only 20 per cent of the cases. The scores differed by one point or less in 58 per cent of cases and 2 points or less in 83 per cent of the cases. As White points out, a 1-point difference is generally considered unproblematic, but on a 6-point scale the difference between a 3 and a 4 is the difference between a pass and a fail. Obviously, then, changes in examiner severity/leniency over-time have implications for maintaining standards, and must be monitored. Research has been conducted into variations in examiner severity/leniency during the marking of a particular allocation of scripts, a marking period, and over more extended periods of time.

(2004) notes that most research papers describe interrater reliability as though it is a single, universal concept. He argues this practice is imprecise and potentially misleading. The specific type of interrater reliability being discussed should be indicated. He categorises the most common statistical methods for reporting interrater reliability into one of three classes: consensus estimates; consistency estimates; and measurement estimates.

Manso (2011)

Lerner and Wulf’s (2007) study of corporate R&D lab heads.They show that higher levels of deferred compensation are associated with the production ofmore heavily cited patents, whereas short-term incentives bear no relationship to firm innovativeperformance

Tian and Wang (2010) show that start-up firms backed by morefailure-tolerant venture capitalists are more innovativeex post

Lazear (2000)

5

Begg, C. B., & Berlin, J. A. (1988). Publication bias: A problem in interpreting medical data.Journal of theRoyal Statistical Society A, 151, 419–463.

Gilbody, S. M., Song, F., Eastwood, A. J., & Sutton, A. (2000). The causes, consequences and detection ofpublication bias in psychiatry.Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 102, 241–249

Greenberg, S. A. (2009). How citation distortions create unfounded authority: Analysis of a citation net-work.British Medical Journal, 339, b2680

Kennedy, D. (2004). The old file-drawer problem.Science, 305, 45

Krzyzanowska, M. K., Pintilie, M., & Tannock, I. F. (2003). Factors associated with failure to publish largerandomized trials presented at an oncology meeting.Journal of the American Medical Association,290, 495–501

Levine, T., Asada, K. J., & Carpenter, C. (2009). Sample sizes and effect sizes are negatively correlated inmeta-analyses: Evidence and implications of a publication bias against non-significant findings.Communication Monographs, 76, 286–302

Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H. D., & O’Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the peerreviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevelapproaches.Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290–1326

Paris, G., De Leo, G., Menozzi, P., & Gatto, M. (1998). Region-based citation bias in science.Nature, 396,6708

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.Psychological Bulletin, 86,638–641

Song, F. J., Parekh-Bhurke, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J. J., Sutton, A. J., et al. (2009). Extent ofpublication bias in different categories of research cohorts: A meta-analysis of empirical studies.BMCMedical Research Methodology, 9, 79

Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests ofsignificance—Or vice versa.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 30–34

Osuna, C., Crux-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menedez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects ofevaluation systems on publication performance.Scientometrics, 86, 575–592

Silvertown, J., & McConway, K. J. (1997). Does ‘‘publication bias’’ lead to biased science?Oikos, 79(1),167–168.

Yousefi-Nooraie, R., Shakiba, B., & Mortaz-Hejri, S. (2006). Country development and manuscript selec-tion bias: A review of published studies.BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 37

Evanschitzky, H., Baumgarth, C., Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2007). Replication research’s disturbingtrend.Journal of Business Research, 60(4), 411–415. doi

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008a). Perfect study, poor evidence: Interpretation of biases preceding study design.Seminars in Hematology, 45(3), 160–166

Feigenbaum, S., & Levy, D. M. (1996). Research bias: Some preliminary findings.Knowledge and Policy:The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 9(2 & 3), 135–142.

Song, F., Parekh, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J., Sutton, A. J., et al. (2010). Dissemination andpublication of research findings: An updated review of related biases.Health Technology Assessment,14(8), 1–193. doi

Formann, A. K. (2008). Estimating the proportion of studies missing for meta-analysis due to publicationbias.Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29(5), 732–739. doi

Fronczak, P., Fronczak, A., & Holyst, J. A. (2007). Analysis of scientific productivity using maximumentropy principle and fluctuation-dissipation theorem.Physical Review E, 75(2), 026103. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.75.026103.

Atkin, P. A. (2002). A paradigm shift in the medical literature.British Medical Journal, 325(7378),1450–1451

Bonitz, M., & Scharnhorst, A. (2001). Competition in science and the Matthew core journals.Sciento-metrics, 51(1), 37–54

Pfeffer, J. (1992).Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press

you will research

Legal Writing for the Courts: An Annotated Bibliography