A Content and Sample Analysis of Quantitative Articles Published in the Journal of Counseling & Development Between 1991 and 2000

This study reviewed the content of articles and characteristics of samples in all quantitative articles published in the Journal of Counseling & Development between 1991 and 2000. The content analysis revealed that the areas that received the most attention were academic/career, multicultural issues, symptoms/disorders, and counseling process. Gender was reported in 88%, race/ethnicity in 60%, socioeconomic status in 11%, and sexual orientation in 1% of the articles. Implications for future research are addressed.     

Bibliometric and Scientometric Analysis of the Articles Published in the Journal of Religion and Health Between 1975 and 2016

Journal of Religion and Health - Bibliometrics and scientometrics are novel closely related scientific fields measuring and analyzing scientific publications in a certain area. Although...     

A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context

This paper answers the question how pragmatic argumentation which occurs in a legal context, can be analyzed and evaluated adequately. First, the author surveys various ideas taken from argumentation theory and legal theory on the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation. Then, on the basis of these ideas, she develops a pragma-dialectical instrument for analyzing and evaluating pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Finally she demonstrates how this instrument can be used by giving an exemplary analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court.     

国内外医学专业杂志发表医学人文相关文章情况分析

总结分析了201 2年1月～2013年5月国外4种医学专业杂志(BMJ、JAMA、LANCET和NEJM)医学人文相关文章的发表情况,并与国内4种知名医学专业杂志(《中华医学杂志》、《中国实用内科杂志》、《中华内科杂志》和《中华外科杂志》)发表的医学人文类文章的情况进行对比分析,结果发现,国外医学专业杂志医学人文类文章比重较大,而且涉及的领域较广,包括医疗卫生政策管理、医学社会学、对患者及医生的人文关怀、医疗风险告知和医疗差错告知的文章.而国内与国外杂志相比存在较大差距.     

Sex Biases in Subject Selection: A Survey of Articles Published in American Medical Journals

This study discusses the results of a survey of 1,800 articles published in American medical journals from 1985--1996. The study finds 9% of these articles reported research that uses only male subjects to examine medical conditions that affect both sexes; the ratio of research on female to male conditions among these articles was greater than 5:1; but 76.5% of the articles reported research that includes both male and female subjects. The study also discusses evidence that sex biases against women (and men) are decreasing. This study also offers some possible psychological, institutional, medical, and economic explanations of the sex biases in medical research published in American journals, and discusses some policy implications of sex biases in medical research. The study concludes by urging others to conduct more empirical research on sex biases in medical research.     

The Development of the Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation

This paper describes the development of pragma-dialectics as a theory of argumentative discourse. First the development of the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion is explained, with the rules that are to be complied with in order to avoid fallacies from occurring. Then the integration is discussed of rhetorical insight in the dialectical framework. In this endeavour, the concept of strategic manoeuvring is explained that allows for a more refined and more profoundly justified analysis of argumentative discourse and a better identification of fallacies. The paper ends with a brief overview of current research projects.     

The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness

Even though intrafirm transfers of knowledge are often laborious, time consuming, and difficult, current conceptions treat them as essentially costless and instantaneous. When acknowledged, difficulty is an anomaly in the way transfers are modeled rather than a characteristic feature of the transfer itself. One first step toward incorporating difficulty in the analysis of knowledge transfer is to recognize that a transfer is not an act, as typically modeled, but a process. This article offers a process model of knowledge transfer. The model identifies stages of transfer and factors that are expected to correlate with difficulty at different stages of the transfer. The general expectation is that factors that affect the opportunity to transfer are more likely to predict difficulty during the initiation phase, whereas factors that affect the execution of the transfer are more likely to predict difficulty during subsequent implementation phases. Measures of stickiness are developed for each stage of the transfer to explore the predictive power of different factors at different stages of the process. A cross-sectional analysis of primary data collected through a two-step survey of 122 transfers of organizational practices within eight firms illustrates the applicability of the model and suggests several issues for further research.     

《儒教问题争论集》出版

对于“儒教（或儒学）是否宗教”的问题，尽管参加争论的学者并不很多，但它确是二十年来中国学术界最具挑战性，也是一个颇有争议并使众多中国学者甚感困惑的问题。然而，争论的文章发表在不同的书刊和专著中，查寻起来颇费周折。为使关注这一问题的广大学者较为便利而又全面地了解争论的情况及其发展脉络，也为了进一步推动有关研究的深入发展，宗教文化出版社独具慧眼，特邀“儒教是教”说的提出者──著名学者任继愈先生做主编，选编儒教问题不同观点的典型文章，于世纪交替之际（2000年11月）出版了《儒教问题争论集》。《儒教问题争论…     

The Psychology of Referencing in Psychology Journal Articles

ABSTRACT— Citation statistics can affect major professional decisions, but little is known about how important a particular reference is to the citing document. We asked 49 psychologists to rate the importance of every reference in their own empirical paper and to indicate the primary citation reason. References cited for conceptual ideas or to justify methods and data analyses were regarded as more important than references cited for general background, limitations, or future research. The location, frequency, and length of a citation predicted its importance, but such relationships were weaker for self-citations. We make suggestions about referencing for authors, editors, and bibliographic database designers.     

Research Quality: Critique of Quantitative Articles in the Journal of Counseling & Development

The purpose of this study was to examine the quality of quantitative articles published in the Journal of Counseling & Development. Quality concerns arose in regard to omissions of psychometric information of instruments, effect sizes, and statistical power. Type VI and II errors were found. Strengths included stated research questions and appropriateness of analyses. Implications of these results are provided.     

Goals in Argumentation: A Proposal for the Analysis and Evaluation of Public Political Arguments

In this paper, I review and compare major literature on goals in argumentation scholarship, aiming to answer the question of how to take the different goals of arguers into account when analysing and evaluating public political arguments. On the basis of the review, I suggest to differentiate between the different goals along two important distinctions: first, distinguish between goals which are intrinsic to argumentation and goals which are extrinsic to it and second distinguish between goals of the act of arguing and goals of argumentative interactions. Furthermore, I propose to analyse public political arguments as multi-purposive activity types and reconstruct the argumentative exchanges as a series of simultaneous discussions. This enables us to examine public political arguments from a perspective in which the intrinsic goals of argumentation are in principle instrumental for the achievement of the socio-political purposes of argumentation, and consequently, it makes our assessment of the argumentative quality of the argument also indicative of the quality of the socio-political processes to which the arguments contribute.     

Processing Conventional Conceptual Metaphors in Persian: A Corpus-Based Psycholinguistic Study

Research on the psycholinguistic processing of conceptual metaphors has produced contrasting results in recent years. There have also been criticisms that in experimental studies of metaphor processing, linguistic stimuli are mostly intuition-based and not designed objectively based on the original language use data. To address these issues, we studied the processing of conventional metaphoric expressions in Persian language using corpus data. A reading time experiment was designed to test whether conventional metaphoric expressions activated conceptual metaphors. A corpus of 50 million word tokens was used to study the conventional patterns of metaphoric expressions usages and construct experimental items. Fifty five Persian speakers read a set of scenarios containing non-conventional metaphor, conventional metaphor and non-metaphor expressions on computer and the reading times of the following novel target sentence in each condition were recorded by DMDX stimulus presenter program. Comparing mean reading times using one-way ANOVA revealed that reading target sentence after conventional metaphor scenarios had been significantly faster than non-metaphor scenarios, but slower than non-conventional scenarios. The results show that conventionality has a weakening effect on the strength of metaphoric expressions to activate conceptual metaphors.     

医学期刊载文的伦理学审查情况分析——以《中国学校卫生》为例

通过查阅《中国学校卫生》近5年纸质期刊,查看文章“对象与方法”中有无“知情同意”或“获得伦理学审查”等信息。结果显示,获得伦理学审查或知情同意的文章884篇,各年份获得伦理学审查、知情同意及总体检出率差异均有统计学意义(χ²=366.29,43.58,219.83,P<0.01)。各年份获得伦理学审查、知情同意的心理学研究及总体检出率(χ²=107.55,16.80,58.66);获得伦理学审查的干预性研究及总体检出率(χ²=44.40,18.46);获得伦理学审查的涉及生物样本的研究检出率(χ²=17.47),差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。今后应不断加强引导和教育,加强科研人员及编辑的伦理意识。     

Authorship Matrix: A Rational Approach to Quantify Individual Contributions and Responsibilities in Multi-Author Scientific Articles

We propose a rational method for addressing an important question—who deserves to be an author of a scientific article? We review various contentious issues associated with this question and recommend that the scientific community should view authorship in terms of contributions and responsibilities, rather than credits. We propose a new paradigm that conceptually divides a scientific article into four basic elements: ideas, work, writing, and stewardship. We employ these four fundamental elements to modify the well-known International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines. The modified ICMJE guidelines are then used as the basis to develop an approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author articles. The outcome of the approach is an authorship matrix, which can be used to answer several nagging questions related to authorship.     

Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing

Why do we formulate arguments? Usually, things such as persuading opponents, finding consensus, and justifying knowledge are listed as functions of arguments. But arguments can also be used to stimulate reflection on one’s own reasoning. Since this cognitive function of arguments should be important to improve the quality of people’s arguments and reasoning, for learning processes, for coping with “wicked problems,” and for the resolution of conflicts, it deserves to be studied in its own right. This contribution develops first steps towards a theory of reflective argumentation. It provides a definition of reflective argumentation, justifies its importance, delineates it from other cognitive functions of argumentation in a new classification of argument functions, and it discusses how reflection on one’s own reasoning can be stimulated by arguments.