Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- CITES enforcement (1)
- bibliometric analysis (1)
- child abuse and neglect (1)
- child maltreatment (1)
- global mapping (1)
- molecular phylogeny (1)
- morphology (1)
- scientometrics (1)
- taxonomy (1)
- tiger geckos (1)
Child maltreatment remains a major health threat globally that requires the understanding of socioeconomic and cultural contexts to craft effective interventions. However, little is known about research agendas globally and the development of knowledge-producing networks in this field of study. This study aims to explore the bibliometric overview on child maltreatment publications to understand their growth from 1916 to 2018. Data from the Web of Science Core Collection were collected in May 2018. Only research articles and reviews written in the English language were included, with no restrictions by publication date. We analyzed publication years, number of papers, journals, authors, keywords and countries, and presented the countries collaboration and co-occurrence keywords analysis. From 1916 to 2018, 47,090 papers (53.0% in 2010–2018) were published in 9442 journals. Child Abuse & Neglect (2576 papers; 5.5%); Children and Youth Services Review (1130 papers; 2.4%) and Pediatrics (793 papers, 1.7%) published the most papers. The most common research areas were Psychology (16,049 papers, 34.1%), Family Studies (8225 papers, 17.5%), and Social Work (7367 papers, 15.6%). Among 192 countries with research publications, the most prolific countries were the United States (26,367 papers), England (4676 papers), Canada (3282 papers) and Australia (2664 papers). We identified 17 authors who had more than 60 scientific items. The most cited papers (with at least 600 citations) were published in 29 journals, headed by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (7 papers) and the Lancet (5 papers). This overview of global research in child maltreatment indicated an increasing trend in this topic, with the world’s leading centers located in the Western countries led by the United States. We called for interdisciplinary research approaches to evaluating and intervening on child maltreatment, with a focus on low-middle income countries (LMICs) settings and specific contexts.
A morphological and molecular review of the genus Goniurosaurus, including an identification key
(2021)
The genus Goniurosaurus (tiger geckos) currently consists of 23 species distributed in China, Japan and Vietnam. Several species complexes and recent discoveries of cryptic species pose challenges to the species identification, which is crucial to effectively implement the recent listing of the species from China and Vietnam in CITES Appendix II and the species from Japan in CITES Appendix III. Based on the results of our field work in northern Vietnam and data compiled from literature, we herein provide a taxonomic review of the genus Goniurosaurus. Our phylogenetic analyses showed that all recorded populations of tiger geckos from Vietnam, which were found to be monophyletic with low intra-specific genetic divergences, are assigned to one of the four species: G. catbaensis, G. huuliensis, G. lichtenfelderi or G. luii. Both genetic and morphological analyses confirm that the species from China and Vietnam can be split into three major groups. Based on the newly collected data, we provide an extended morphological description of the Vietnamese species. In addition, we provide an identification key for all Goniurosaurus species from China, Japan and Vietnam in order to assist authorities in the enforcement of the recent CITES listing.
Non-standard errors
(2021)
In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in sample estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: non-standard errors. To study them, we let 164 teams test six hypotheses on the same sample. We find that non-standard errors are sizeable, on par with standard errors. Their size (i) co-varies only weakly with team merits, reproducibility, or peer rating, (ii) declines significantly after peer-feedback, and (iii) is underestimated by participants.
