PubMed · 9646271
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A Ordóñez Gallego, E Espinosa Arranz. 1998-04-25. [Perverted authorship].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9646271/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The structure of scientific collaboration networks is investigated. Two scientists are considered connected if they have authored a paper together and explicit networks of such connections are constructed by using data drawn from a number of databases, including MEDLINE (biomedical research), the Los Alamos e-Print Archive (physics), and NCSTRL (computer science). I show that these collaboration networks form "small worlds," in which randomly chosen pairs of scientists are typically separated by only a short path of intermediate acquaintances. I further give results for mean and distribution of numbers of collaborators of authors, demonstrate the presence of clustering in the networks, and highlight a number of apparent differences in the patterns of collaboration between the fields studied.
Letters of recommendation may serve a number of vital functions related to the evaluation, selection, and promotion of candidates. The lure of academic celebrity or the desire of an individual candidate for a flattering letter must not threaten the veracity of the content. Letters of recommendation should be appropriately authored to meet the needs of the institution or individual requesting the letter, while keeping authenticity paramount. Length and content should be complete but not overly verbose. Relevant elements suggested by standardized formats should typically be included, such as nature of contact with the applicant, commitment to emergency medicine, work ethic, ability to develop a differential and treatment plan, personality, interpersonal interactions, and an overall comparative ranking. The seven cardinal elements of an exemplary letter of recommendation are that it should be: 1) authentic (based on adequate first-hand knowledge of the candidate's skills); 2) honest (accurate; avoiding exaggeration or hyperbole); 3) explicit (avoidance of veiled omissions); 4) balanced (taking care to incorporate both strengths and weaknesses); 5) confidential (avoiding unnecessary or unanticipated disclosure); 6) of appropriate detail and length (content relevant to the institutional or individual requests); and 7) technically clear (avoidance of unnecessary abbreviations and jargon). The implied duty to future students, colleagues, researchers, and patients who might come in contact with the applicant should motivate authors to write honest, explicit, appropriate, and complete letters.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.