Darwin & Kubrick, Joe Campbell & Me: Eminent-Genius and Everyday-Joe Heroes on a Journey

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (Volume 2, Issue 2: Winter 2017) ◽  
pp. 54-68
Author(s):  
Joe T. Velikovsky
Keyword(s):  
Information Science ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Hero's Journey ◽  
Twelve Step ◽  
Joseph Campbell ◽  
Stanley Kubrick ◽  
Media Arts ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Creativity Studies

This article examines the lives of two eminent geniuses, scientist-writer Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and writer-artist-filmmaker Stanley Kubrick (1928-1999), as monomythic hero’s journeys. The article is in three parts: Part One (Separation) presents Vogler’s (1992) twelve-step monomyth, a compressed version of the 17-step monomyth hero’s journey pattern identified by comparative mythographer Joseph Campbell (1949) in The Hero with a Thousand Faces. In Part Two (Initiation) the twelve-step monomyth narrative algorithm (Vogler, 1992) is used to explain the eminent genius lifework of Charles Darwin, and this same twelve-step lens is then applied to the eminent genius lifework of Stanley Kubrick. Part Three (The Return) applies the same twelve-step monomyth to the author-researcher of this article (Velikovsky), aiming to demonstrate how the monomyth applies not only on large scales to eminent geniuses such as Darwin and Kubrick in Science and the Arts, but also on small scales—even to Everyday Joes such as myself, thus also supporting Williams (2016, 2017). The conclusion drawn is that the monomyth pattern is a life-problem and also domain-problem solving tool, supporting the heroism science research of Allison (2016) and Efthimiou (2016a, 2016b). As this research is transdisciplinary, the disciplines of the research presented are: Communication and Media Arts, Information Science and Technology, Creativity Studies, Consilient Narratology, Evolutionary Psychology, and Metamodernism.

Journal packing density of library and information science research journals at the global level: a study

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramesh Pandita ◽  
Shivendra Singh
Keyword(s):  
Packing Density ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Global Level ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Journal Publishing ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
The Usa

Purpose This study aims to find out the average journal packing density (JPD) of Library and Information Science (LIS) research journals published across the world. The concept, JPD, means the average number of research articles published by a research journal in one volume. Accordingly, the undergoing study evaluates the average number of research articles published in each volume of each research journal published in the field of LIS at the global level. Some other key aspects evaluated include the number of LIS research journal publishing countries, average JPD of LIS research journals at the continental level, etc. Design/methodology/approach This study is purely based on secondary data retrieved from SCImago, which is SCOPUS data. Keeping in view the objectives of this study, the data about research articles published in all LIS research journals during the period 2015 through 2019 were retrieved to undertake the study. Findings From the data analysis, it emerged that 256 research journals duly indexed by SCOPUS are published in the field of LIS across 36 countries. In all 48,596 research articles were published from 2015 to 2019 in these research journals at an average of 44.71 research articles per journal per volume. More than 75% of LIS research journals are published from Germany, Spain, Netherlands, the USA and the UK. Research journals published from the USA have higher JPD of 53.09 research articles per journal per volume, which is 18.74% higher than the average global JPD of LIS research journals. 50% of LIS research journal publishing countries are from Europe and the majority 52.55% LIS research articles were published in European LIS research journals. The average JPD of LIS research journals published from North America is 51.73 research articles per journal per volume, which is the highest across continents. Research limitations/implications Standardization of JPD of research journals irrespective of the subject discipline they are published in is important for many reasons and the foremost being, such standardization helps in keeping at bay the predatory research journals, which normally float such packing density norms, with the sole aim to earn money in the shape of manuscript handling charges, thereby publishing a far greater number of research article in each issue of a journal than the average research articles published by a research journal. Originality/value Very few studies have been conducted around the concept JPD, especially by the authors of this particular study. This study has however been particularized to the LIS subject discipline, while the findings add to existing lot of study already undertaken, hence outcome can be generalized.

scholarly journals Citation Analysis Shows Promise as an Effective Tool for Monograph Collection Development

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Scott Marsalis
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Academic Library ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Local Context ◽  
The Social ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Us

A Review of: Enger, K. B. (2009). Using citation analysis to develop core book collections in academic libraries. Library & Information Science Research, 31(2), 107-112. Objective – To test whether acquiring books written by authors of highly cited journal articles is an effective method for building a collection in the social sciences. Design – Comparison Study. Setting – Academic library at a public university in the US. Subjects – A total of 1,359 book titles, selected by traditional means (n=1,267) or based on citation analysis (n=92). Methods – The researchers identified highly-ranked authors, defined as the most frequently cited authors publishing in journals with an impact factor greater than one, with no more than six journals in any category, using 1999 ISI data. They included authors in the categories Business, Anthropology, Criminology & Penology, Education & Education Research, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology/Anthropology, and General Social Sciences. The Books in Print bibliographic tool was searched to identify monographs published by these authors, and any titles not already owned were purchased. All books in the study were available to patrons by Fall 2005. The researchers collected circulation data in Spring 2007, and used it to compare titles acquired by this method with titles selected by traditional means. Main Results – Overall, books selected by traditional methods circulated more than those selected by citation analysis, with differences significant at the .001 level. However, at the subject category level, there was no significant difference at the .05 level. Most books selected by the test method circulated one to two times. Conclusion – Citation analysis can be an effective method for building a relevant book collection, and may be especially effective for identifying works relevant to a discipline beyond local context.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document