Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011154093 = product of:
  0.052052435 = sum of:
    0.017349645 = weight(_text_:web in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017349645 = score(doc=3449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3449, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3449)
    0.015060266 = weight(_text_:information in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015060266 = score(doc=3449,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 3449, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3449)
    0.019642524 = product of:
      0.058927573 = sum of:
        0.058927573 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058927573 = score(doc=3449,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 3449, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3449)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.869-890

Year

2010

0.009395282 = product of:
  0.06576697 = sum of:
    0.013386902 = weight(_text_:information in 4205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013386902 = score(doc=4205,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 4205, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4205)
    0.052380066 = product of:
      0.1571402 = sum of:
        0.1571402 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1571402 = score(doc=4205,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            1.336931 = fieldWeight in 4205, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4205)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 44(2010), S.xxx-xxx

Year

2010

0.0073058177 = product of:
  0.051140722 = sum of:
    0.04089351 = weight(_text_:web in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04089351 = score(doc=611,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 611, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=611)
    0.010247213 = weight(_text_:information in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010247213 = score(doc=611,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 611, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=611)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.2055-2065

0.002619642 = product of:
  0.018337494 = sum of:
    0.005916231 = weight(_text_:information in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005916231 = score(doc=1752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
    0.012421262 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012421262 = score(doc=1752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1752)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.10, S.926-938

8.7833253E-4 = product of:
  0.012296655 = sum of:
    0.012296655 = weight(_text_:information in 3864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012296655 = score(doc=3864,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 3864, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3864)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The literatures of the physical sciences and mathematics are as diverse as the information wants and needs of their users while serving the common purpose of disseminating their research findings. The peer-reviewed journal is the hallmark of scholarly communication for physicists, astronomers, chemists, and mathematicians yet each discipline has its own unique information sharing practices. This entry discusses the information behavior of physical and mathematical scientists and the ways in which their literatures mesh with their distinctive research activities. Although physicists and astronomers were among the earliest adopters of electronic modes of scholarly communication, chemists and mathematicians have been slower to embrace digital information sharing. This entry therefore also considers the influence of electronic distribution of physical science and mathematical information on the ways in which their intended audiences access and manage the plethora of digital resources. Recent initiatives designed to facilitate access to the literatures of physics, astronomy, chemistry, and mathematics are also surveyed.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

4.2258794E-4 = product of:
  0.005916231 = sum of:
    0.005916231 = weight(_text_:information in 1453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005916231 = score(doc=1453,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1453, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1453)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.362-371

2.988148E-4 = product of:
  0.004183407 = sum of:
    0.004183407 = weight(_text_:information in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004183407 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.3, S.187-200