Präambel Die Technische Universität Dresden (TU Dresden) und die ihr angehörenden Wissenschaftler:innen werden für ihre Forschungsleistungen national wie international anerkannt. Grundlage allen erfolgreichen wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens an der TU Dresden sind die in der „Satzung zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis, zur Vermeidung wissenschaftlichen Fehlverhaltens und für den Umgang mit Verstößen“ (GWP-Satzung) verankerten Prinzipien. Zu den wichtigsten Indikatoren für wissenschaftlichen Output zählen Publikationen und Zitationen, die in einschlägigen Datenbanken abgebildet werden. Es liegt daher im Interesse der Autor:innen sowie der Universität, dass Publikationen und Zitationen eindeutig zugeordnet und in einschlägigen Datenbanken referenziert werden können. Dafür ist eine eindeutige, namentlich korrekte und vollständige Zuordnung einer Publikation zum:zur jeweiligen Autor:in sowie zur TU Dresden unerlässlich. Eine fehlende oder inkorrekte Angabe der institutionellen Zugehörigkeit (Affiliation) hat zur Folge, dass die Publikation nicht zuzuordnen ist und damit auch nicht als Leistung des:der Einzelnen bzw. der Universität von der Wissenschaftscommunity wahrgenommen oder in Leistungsvergleichen berücksichtigt werden kann. Um die Sichtbarkeit des gesamtheitlichen Forschungsprofils der TU Dresden weiter zu erhöhen, wird das Gesamtpublikationsaufkommen der Universität unter Zuhilfenahme einschlägiger Datenbanken im hauseigenen Forschungsinformationssystem (FIS) erfasst und ausgewählte Inhalte über das daran angeschlossene öffentlientliche TUD Forschungsportal und durch Einbettung in die TU Dresden Webseiten gebündelt der breiten Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung gestellt. Dadurch wird die persönliche Leistungsbilanz der Forschenden optimal dargestellt und die Reputation der Universität in institutionellen Leistungsvergleichen („Rankings“) gesteigert. Die Publikationsrichtlinie ist von allen wissenschaftlich tätigen Mitgliedern und Angehörigen der TU Dresden mit einer Erst- oder Zweitaffiliation zur TU Dresden einzuhalten. / Preamble The TUD Dresden University of Technology (TU Dresden) and its researchers are recognized nationally and internationally for their research achievements. The basis of all successful scientific work at TU Dresden are the principles anchored in the „Statutes for Ensuring Good Scientific Practice, for Avoiding Scientific Misconduct and for Handling Violations“ (GWP Statutes) . Among the most important indicators of scientific output are publications and citations, which are represented in relevant databases. It is therefore in the interest of the authors as well as the university that publications and citations can be clearly assigned and referenced in relevant databases. Therefore, a clear, correct and complete assignment of a publication to the respective author and to the TU Dresden is indispensable. If the institutional affiliation is missing or incorrect, the publication cannot be assigned and thus cannot be acknowledged as an achievement of the individual or the university by the scientific community or be taken into account in benchmarking analysis. In order to further increase the visibility of the TU Dresden‘s overall research profile, the university’s overall publication output is compiled with the help of relevant databases in the in-house Research Information System (FIS) and selected content is made available to the general public in aggregated form via the connected public TUD Research Portal and by embedding it into the TU Dresden websites. Thus, the personal performance of the researchers is optimally represented and the reputation of the university in institutional benchmarkings („rankings“) is improved. The publication guideline must be applied by all academically active members and affiliates of the TU Dresden with a first or second affiliation to the TU Dresden.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

In single-case research design (SCRD), experimental control is demonstrated when the researcher’s application of an intervention, known as the independent variable, reliably produces a change in behavior, known as the dependent variable, and the change is not otherwise explained by confounding or extraneous variables. SCRD studies that fail to demonstrate experimental control may not be published because researchers may be unwilling to submit these papers for publication due to null findings and journals may be unwilling and unlikely to publish null outcomes (i.e., publication bias). The lack of submission and publication of null findings, leading to a disproportion of positive studies in the published research literature, is known as the “file drawer effect” (Rosenthal, 1979; Ferguson & Heene, 2012). Recently, researchers and policy organizations have identified evidence-based practices (EBPs) for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) based on systematic reviews of SCRD studies (Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, Rogers, & Hatton, 2010). However, if SCRD studies that do not demonstrate experimental control (i.e., null studies) are disproportionately unpublished due to the file drawer effect, this may result in a misrepresentation of positive findings, leading interventions to be deemed evidence-based that, actually, lack sufficient empirical support (Sham & Smith, 2014; Shadish, Zelinsky, Vevea, & Kratochwill, 2016). Social narratives, exercise, self-management, and response interruption/redirection are interventions for children with ASD that has been named EBPs according to the National Autism Standards (NAC; 2009) and National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC; 2010); however, these interventions have not yet been evaluated for potential publication bias. The study employed and extended methods similar to Sham and Smith (2014), comparing the procedures and results of published articles and unpublished dissertations and theses for interventions identified as EBPs to evaluate the methodological rigor and evaluate the possibility of publication bias, file drawer effect, and lack of replication. Specifically, the results of published and unpublished studies were compared to determine if published studies showed greater treatment effect, which would indicate the file drawer effect. Also, SCRD quality indicators were employed to evaluate whether studies that were published tend to be of higher quality, as this would mitigate possible publication bias shown by larger effect sizes (ES) in published studies. The outcome resulted in three out of four EBPs (social narratives, antecedent exercise, and response interruption and redirection), yielding different ES when published studies were compared to unpublished studies; in contrast, self-management yielded a similar ES for published and unpublished studies. For social narratives and antecedent exercise, unpublished studies presented at lower estimated ES than published studies; whereas for response interruption and redirection, unpublished studies presented at a higher estimated ES compared to published studies. Generally, study quality presented at similar levels for published and unpublished studies for each EBP, with the exception of antecedent exercise. Differences were identified for antecedent exercise study quality based upon visual and statistical analyses. Lastly, there do not appear to be observed differences in treatment outcomes between published and unpublished studies when study quality was considered in the analysis. Implications of the results are discussed with respect to the file drawer effect and publication bias in EBPs, and the call to increase publications in peer-reviewed journals of negative findings and replication studies, which leads to identifying and establishing boundary criteria for EBPs. / Special Education

In diesem Beitrag stellen wir die aktuellen Möglichkeiten der Open-Access-Publikationsunterstützung für Angehörige der TU Bergakademie Freiberg (TUBAF) vor und präsentieren eine Statistik zum Open-Access-Publizieren an der TUBAF für die Jahre 2014-2023.

Yes / While death is universal, reactions to death and ways of dealing with the dead body are hugely diverse, and archaeological research reveals numerous ways of dealing with the dead through time and across the world. In this paper, findings are presented which not only demonstrate the power of archaeology to promote and aid discussion around this difficult and challenging topic, but also how our approach resulted in personal growth and professional development impacts for participants. In this interdisciplinary pilot study, archaeological case studies were used in 31 structured workshops with 187 participants from health and social care backgrounds in the UK, to explore their reactions to a diverse range of materials which documented wide and varied approaches to death and the dead. Our study supports the hypothesis that the past is a powerful instigator of conversation around challenging aspects of death, and after death care and practices: 93% of participants agreed with this. That exposure to archaeological case studies and artefacts stimulates multifaceted discourse, some of it difficult, is a theme that also emerges in our data from pre, post and follow-up questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. The material prompted participants to reflect on their biases, expectations and norms around both treatment of the dead, and of bereavement, impacting on their values, attitudes and beliefs. Moreover, 87% of participants believed the workshop would have a personal effect through thinking differently about death and bereavement, and 57% thought it would impact on how they approached death and bereavement in their professional practice. This has huge implications today, where talk of death remains troublesome, and for some, has a near-taboo status – ‘taboo’ being a theme evident in some participants’ own words. The findings have an important role to play in facilitating and normalising discussions around dying and bereavement and in equipping professionals in their work with people with advanced illness. / The project ‘Continuing Bonds: Exploring the meaning and legacy of death through past and contemporary practice’ was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, Grant Number AH/M008266/1. / Research Development Fund Publication Prize Award winner, Dec 2020.

The journalist’s responsibility to the public is to deliver objective and impartial news, but during the height of the societal and feminist Metoo-movement, the content of newspaper publications varied significantly. This variation was influenced partially  by the human factor, ownership, and established guidelines regarding the publication of names at the newspapers.  This study aims to clarify the ethical deliberations behind the publication of names in the news media, specifically at four of Sweden's largest newspapers, Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Aftonbladet and Expressen. For this, a qualitative interview and a qualitative text analysis method has been used, the answers were subsequently analyzed based on the agenda setting-theory, consequence neutrality and the social responsibility methodology. One respondent was chosen from each newspaper and was asked about ethical deliberations, what makes a name publication viable, what consequences might come of it and how they interpret the newspapers’ actions surrounding the publications about Benny Fredriksson. The case of Benny Fredriksson is used as a concrete example whereas it led to extensive ethical discussions in the Swedish press. The study also examines how newspapers’ publications and ethical deliberations differ from each other. The conclusion comes to that there is a difference between them, not only in how they published 2017, but additionally how they argue now. Dagens Nyheter, Aftonbladet and Svenska Dagbladet, all base their arguments in a social responsibility theory, while Expressen lean towards a consequences neutrality perspective.

京都大学 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(農学) / 甲第25318号 / 農博第2584号 / 新制||農||1104(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院農学研究科森林科学専攻 / (主査)教授 北島 薫, 教授 小野田 雄介, 教授 Daniel Epron / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Agricultural Science / Kyoto University / DGAM