Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 5791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=5791,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5791, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5791)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 4205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=4205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4205, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4205)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=611,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 611, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citation and content analyses of eight American Chemical Society (ACS) journals in a range of fields of chemistry were used to describe the use of Web-based information resources by the authors and readers of the scholarly literature of chemistry. The analyses indicate that even though the number of Web-based information resources has grown steadily over the past decade, chemists are not taking full advantage of freely available Web-based resources. They are, however, making use of the ACS Electronic Supporting Information archive. The content of the Web-based resources that are used is primarily text based, and the URLs are provided in the articles' reference lists and experimental sections. The presence of a reference to a Web-based resource in a chemistry article does not influence its rate of citation, even though the viability of the URLs was found to erode with time. Comparison of citation and online access data reveals that at the highest levels of citation, articles also garner high levels of online access. This was especially true for articles describing a technique or methodology. Even though chemists do not incorporate large numbers of freely available Web-based resources into their publications, an increasingly important component of a chemist's information behavior for the direct support of his or her research is unfettered bench-top access via the Web.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=3449,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3449, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As new technologies and information delivery systems emerge, the way in which individuals search for information to support research, teaching, and creative activities is changing. To understand different aspects of researchers' information-seeking behavior, this article surveyed 2,063 academic researchers in natural science, engineering, and medical science from five research universities in the United States. A Web-based, in-depth questionnaire was designed to quantify researchers' information searching, information use, and information storage behaviors. Descriptive statistics are reported. Additionally, analysis of results is broken out by institutions to compare differences among universities. Significant findings are reported, with the biggest changes because of increased utilization of electronic methods for searching, sharing, and storing scholarly content, as well as for utilizing library services. Generally speaking, researchers in the five universities had similar information-seeking behavior, with small differences because of varying academic unit structures and myriad library services provided at the individual institutions.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=1752,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The explosion of the field of molecular biology is paralleled by the growth in usage and acceptance of Webbased genomic and proteomic databases (GPD) such as GenBank and Protein Data Bank in the scholarly communication of scientists. Surveys, case studies, analysis of bibliographic records from Medline and CAPIus, and examination of "Instructions to Authors" sections of molecular biology journals all confirm the integral role of GPD in the scientific literature cycle. Over the past 20 years the place of GPD in the culture of molecular biologists was observed to move from tacit implication to explicit knowledge. Originally journals suggested deposition of data in GDP but by the Iate 1980s, the majority of journals mandated deposition of data for a manuscript to be accepted for publication. A surge subsequently occurred in the number of articles retrievable from Medline and CAPIus using the keyword "GenBank." GPD were not found to a new form of publication, but rather a fundamental storage and retrieval mechanism for vast amounts of molecular biology information that support the creation of scientific intellectual property. For science to continue to advance, scientists unequivocally agreed that GDP must remain free of peer-review and available at no charge to the public. The results suggest that the existing models of scientific communication should be updated to incorporate GDP data deposition into the current continuum of scientific communication.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=1453,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study characterizes the usage and acceptance of electronic preprints (e-prints) in the literature of chemistry. Survey of authors of e-prints appearing in the Chemistry Preprint Server (CPS) at http://preprints. chemweb.com indicates use of the CPS as a convenient vehicle for dissemination of research findings and for receipt of feedback before submitting to a peer-reviewed journal. Reception of CPS e-prints by editors of top chemistry journals is very poor. Only 6% of editors responding allow publication of articles that have previously appeared as e-prints. Concerns focus an the lack of peer review and the uncertain permanence of e-print storage. Consequently, it was not surprising to discover that citation analysis yielded no citations to CPS e-prints in the traditional literature of chemistry. Yet data collected and posted by the CPS indicates that the e-prints are valued, read, and discussed to a notable extent within the chemistry community. Thirty-two percent of the most highly rated, viewed, and discussed e-prints eventually appear in the journal literature, indicating the validity of the work submitted to the CPS. This investigation illustrates the ambivalence with which editors and authors view the CPS, but also gives an early sense of the potential free and rapid information dissemination, coupled with open, uninhibited discussion and evaluation, has to expand, enrich, and vitalize the scholarly discourse of chemical scientists.

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=5184,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In one of two bibliometric papers in this issue Brown looks at formal publication and citation of Eprints as shown by the policies and practices of 37 top tier physics journals, and by citation trends in ISI's SciSearch database and Journal Citation Reports. Citation analysis was carried out if Eprint cites were indicated by editor response, instruction to authors sections, reports in the literature, or actual examination of citation lists. Total contribution to 12 archives and their citation counts in the journals were compiled. Of the 13 editors surveyed that responded, 8 published papers that had appeared in the archive. Two of these required removal from the archive at publication; two of the 13 did not publish papers that have appeared as Eprints. A review journal that solicits its contributions allowed citation of Eprints. Seven allowed citations to Eprints, but were less than enthusiastic.Nearly 36,000 citations were made to the 12 archives. Citations to the 37 journals and their impact factors remain constant over the period of 1991 to 1998. Eprint citations appear to peak about 3 years after appearance as do citations to published papers. Contribution to the archives, and their use as measured by citation, is clearly growing. Citation form and publishing policy varies from journal to journal.

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 3864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=3864,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3864, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a