Asymmetric response of demand-supply mismatch to investor's sentiment

We look through both the demand and supply side information to understand dynamics of price determination in the real estate market and examine how accurately investors’ attitudes predict the market returns and thereby flagging off extent of any demand-supply mismatch. Our hypothesis is based on the possibility that investors’ call for action in terms of their buy/sell decision and adjustment in reservation/offer prices may indicate impending demand-supply imbalances in the market. In the process, we study several real estate sectors to inform our analysis. The timeframe of our analysis (1995-2010) allows us to observe market dynamics over several economic cycles and in various stages of those cycles. Additionally, we also seek to understand how investors’ attitude or the sentiment affects the market activity over the cycles through asymmetric responses. We test our hypothesis variously using a number of measures of market activity and attitude indicators within several model specifications. The empirical models are estimated using Vector Error Correction framework. Our analysis suggests that investors’ attitude exert strong and statistically significant feedback effects in price determination. Moreover, these effects do reveal heterogeneous responses across the real estate sectors. Interestingly, our results indicate the asymmetric responses during boom, normal and recessionary periods. These results are consistent with the theoretical underpinnings.

What people study when they study Twitter: classifying Twitter related academic papers

PURPOSE: Since its introduction in 2006, messages posted to the microblogging system Twitter have provided a rich dataset for researchers, leading to the publication of over a thousand academic papers. This paper aims to identify this published work and to classify it in order to understand Twitter based research. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Firstly the papers on Twitter were identified. Secondly, following a review of the literature, a classification of the dimensions of microblogging research was established. Thirdly, papers were qualitatively classified using open coded content analysis, based on the paper’s title and abstract, in order to analyze method, subject, and approach. FINDINGS: The majority of published work relating to Twitter concentrates on aspects of the messages sent and details of the users. A variety of methodological approaches are used across a range of identified domains. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: This work reviewed the abstracts of all papers available via database search on the term “Twitter” and this has two major implications: 1) the full papers are not considered and so works may be misclassified if their abstract is not clear, 2) publications not indexed by the databases, such as book chapters, are not included. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: To date there has not been an overarching study to look at the methods and purpose of those using Twitter as a research subject. Our major contribution is to scope out papers published on Twitter until the close of 2011. The classification derived here will provide a framework within which researchers studying Twitter related topics will be able to position and ground their work

How Twitter is studied in the medical professions: a classification of Twitter papers indexed in PubMed

Background: Since their inception, Twitter and related microblogging systems have provided a rich source of information for researchers and have attracted interest in their affordances and use. Since 2009 PubMed has included 123 journal articles on medicine and Twitter, but no overview exists as to how the field uses Twitter in research. // Objective: This paper aims to identify published work relating to Twitter indexed by PubMed, and then to classify it. This classification will provide a framework in which future researchers will be able to position their work, and to provide an understanding of the current reach of research using Twitter in medical disciplines. Limiting the study to papers indexed by PubMed ensures the work provides a reproducible benchmark. // Methods: Papers, indexed by PubMed, on Twitter and related topics were identified and reviewed. The papers were then qualitatively classified based on the paper’s title and abstract to determine their focus. The work that was Twitter focused was studied in detail to determine what data, if any, it was based on, and from this a categorization of the data set size used in the studies was developed. Using open coded content analysis additional important categories were also identified, relating to the primary methodology, domain and aspect. // Results: As of 2012, PubMed comprises more than 21 million citations from biomedical literature, and from these a corpus of 134 potentially Twitter related papers were identified, eleven of which were subsequently found not to be relevant. There were no papers prior to 2009 relating to microblogging, a term first used in 2006. Of the remaining 123 papers which mentioned Twitter, thirty were focussed on Twitter (the others referring to it tangentially). The early Twitter focussed papers introduced the topic and highlighted the potential, not carrying out any form of data analysis. The majority of published papers used analytic techniques to sort through thousands, if not millions, of individual tweets, often depending on automated tools to do so. Our analysis demonstrates that researchers are starting to use knowledge discovery methods and data mining techniques to understand vast quantities of tweets: the study of Twitter is becoming quantitative research. // Conclusions: This work is to the best of our knowledge the first overview study of medical related research based on Twitter and related microblogging. We have used five dimensions to categorise published medical related research on Twitter. This classification provides a framework within which researchers studying development and use of Twitter within medical related research, and those undertaking comparative studies of research relating to Twitter in the area of medicine and beyond, can position and ground their work.

Horizon 2020: a call to forge biodiversity links

For the upcoming calls for Horizon 2020 research funding, the European Commission has said that it would prefer bids from open, collaborative consortia rather than the competitive bids seen in previous funding programmes. To this end, the organizers of 18 European biodiversity informatics projects agreed at a meeting in Rome…

Typography papers, 9

This latest issue of the series of Typography papers opens with a beautifully illustrated article by the type designer Gerard Unger on ‘Romanesque’ letters. A further installment of Eric Kindel’s pathbreaking history of stencil letters is published in contributions by him, Fred Smeijers, and James Mosley. Maurice Göldner writes the first history of an early twentieth-century German typefounder, Brüder Butter. William Berkson and Peter Enneson recover the notion of ‘readability’ through a history of the collaboration between Matthew Luckiesh and the Linotype Company. Paul Luna discusses the role of pictures in dictionaries. Titus Nemeth describes a new form of Arabic type for metal composition. The whole gathering shows the remarkable variety and vitality of typography now.

Refereed journal papers: practice and process

Research must be published, otherwise it will be lost. The most important papers for a researcher to produce are those published in international refereed journals. Good practice in writing papers is something that can be learned. The editorial process involves sending submitted papers to independent experts in the field, usually anonymously, and their comments inform the editor, who decides whether and how to progress with a paper. Much of this is as obscure to experienced researchers as it is to new ones. With forethought and planning, the success rate of getting submitted papers accepted for publication can be increased. Editors and publishers are generally very keen to help people improve their success rate.

Facts, scope, style: a guide to writing papers for IEEE transactions on consumer electronics

In a previous article, I wrote a brief piece on how to enhance papers that have been published at one of the IEEE Consumer Electronics (CE) Society conferences to create papers that can be considered for publishing in IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics (T-CE) [1]. Basically, it included some hints and tips to enhance a conference paper into what is required for a full archival journal paper and not fall foul of self-plagiarism. This article focuses on writing original papers specifically for T-CE. After three years as the journal’s editor-in-chief (EiC), a previous eight years on the editorial board, and having reviewed some 4,000 T-CE papers, I decided to write this article to archive and detail for prospective authors what I have learned over this time. Of course, there are numerous articles on writing good papers—some are really useful [2], but they do not address the specific issues of writing for a journal whose topic (scope) is not widely understood or, indeed, is often misunderstood.

A comparative review of skill assessment: performance, prediction and profiling

The assessment of chess players is an increasingly attractive opportunity and an unfortunate necessity. The chess community needs to limit potential reputational damage by inhibiting cheating and unjustified accusations of cheating: there has been a recent rise in both. A number of counter-intuitive discoveries have been made by benchmarking the intrinsic merit of players’ moves: these call for further investigation. Is Capablanca actually, objectively the most accurate World Champion? Has ELO rating inflation not taken place? Stimulated by FIDE/ACP, we revisit the fundamentals of the subject to advance a framework suitable for improved standards of computational experiment and more precise results. Other domains look to chess as the demonstrator of good practice, including the rating of professionals making high-value decisions under pressure, personnel evaluation by Multichoice Assessment and the organization of crowd-sourcing in citizen science projects. The ‘3P’ themes of performance, prediction and profiling pervade all these domains.