Browsing by Author "Hall, S"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Convergent Surface Water Distributions in U.S. Cities
    (Ecosystems, 2014-01-01) Steele, MK; Heffernan, JB; Bettez, N; Cavender-Bares, J; Groffman, PM; Grové, JM; Hall, S; Hobbie, SE; Larson, K; Morse, JL; Neill, C; Nelson, KC; O’Neil-Dunne, J; Ogden, L; Pataki, DE; Polsky, C; Roy Chowdhury, R
    Earth's surface is rapidly urbanizing, resulting in dramatic changes in the abundance, distribution and character of surface water features in urban landscapes. However, the scope and consequences of surface water redistribution at broad spatial scales are not well understood. We hypothesized that urbanization would lead to convergent surface water abundance and distribution: in other words, cities will gain or lose water such that they become more similar to each other than are their surrounding natural landscapes. Using a database of more than 1 million water bodies and 1 million km of streams, we compared the surface water of 100 US cities with their surrounding undeveloped land. We evaluated differences in areal (A WB) and numeric densities (N WB) of water bodies (lakes, wetlands, and so on), the morphological characteristics of water bodies (size), and the density (D C) of surface flow channels (that is, streams and rivers). The variance of urban A WB, N WB, and D C across the 100 MSAs decreased, by 89, 25, and 71%, respectively, compared to undeveloped land. These data show that many cities are surface water poor relative to undeveloped land; however, in drier landscapes urbanization increases the occurrence of surface water. This convergence pattern strengthened with development intensity, such that high intensity urban development had an areal water body density 98% less than undeveloped lands. Urbanization appears to drive the convergence of hydrological features across the US, such that surface water distributions of cities are more similar to each other than to their surrounding landscapes. © 2014 The Author(s).
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Text recycling: Views of North American journal editors from an interview-based study
    (Learned Publishing, 2019-01-01) Pemberton, M; Hall, S; Moskovitz, C; Anson, CM
    © 2019 The Author(s).Learned Publishing © 2019 ALPSP. Over the past decade, text recycling (TR; AKA ‘self-plagiarism’) has become a visible and somewhat contentious practice, particularly in the realm of journal articles. While growing numbers of publishers are writing editorials and formulating guidelines on TR, little is known about how editors view the practice or how they respond to it. We present results from an interview-based study of 21 North American journal editors from a broad range of academic disciplines. Our findings show that editors' beliefs and practices are quite individualized rather than being tied to disciplinary or other structural parameters. While none of our participants supported the use of large amounts of recycled material from one journal article to another, some editors were staunchly against any use of recycled material, while others were accepting of the practice in certain circumstances. Issues of originality, the challenges of rewriting text, the varied circulation of texts, and abiding by copyright law were prominent themes as editors discussed their approaches to TR. Overall, the interviews showed that many editors have not thought systematically about the practice of TR, and they sometimes have trouble aligning their beliefs and practices.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Text recycling: Views of North American journal editors from an interview-based study
    (Learned Publishing, 2019-01-01) Moskovitz, Cary; Pemberton, M; Hall, S; Anson, CM
    © 2019 The Author(s).Learned Publishing © 2019 ALPSP. Over the past decade, text recycling (TR; AKA ‘self-plagiarism’) has become a visible and somewhat contentious practice, particularly in the realm of journal articles. While growing numbers of publishers are writing editorials and formulating guidelines on TR, little is known about how editors view the practice or how they respond to it. We present results from an interview-based study of 21 North American journal editors from a broad range of academic disciplines. Our findings show that editors' beliefs and practices are quite individualized rather than being tied to disciplinary or other structural parameters. While none of our participants supported the use of large amounts of recycled material from one journal article to another, some editors were staunchly against any use of recycled material, while others were accepting of the practice in certain circumstances. Issues of originality, the challenges of rewriting text, the varied circulation of texts, and abiding by copyright law were prominent themes as editors discussed their approaches to TR. Overall, the interviews showed that many editors have not thought systematically about the practice of TR, and they sometimes have trouble aligning their beliefs and practices.