Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.049754985 = sum of:
  0.025385799 = product of:
    0.101543196 = sum of:
      0.101543196 = weight(_text_:authors in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101543196 = score(doc=996,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024369188 = product of:
    0.048738375 = sum of:
      0.048738375 = weight(_text_:g in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048738375 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many dedicated scientists reject the concept of maintaining a "work-life balance." They argue that work is actually a huge part of life. In the mind-set of these scientists, weekdays and weekends are equally appropriate for working on their research. Although we all have encountered such people, we may wonder how widespread this condition is with other scientists in our field. This brief communication probes work-life balance issues among JASIST authors and editors. We collected and examined the publication histories for 1,533 of the 2,402 articles published in JASIST between 2001 and 2012. Although there is no rush to submit, revise, or accept papers, we found that 11% of these events happened during weekends and that this trend has been increasing since 2005. Our findings suggest that working during the weekend may be one of the ways that scientists cope with the highly demanding era of "publish or perish." We hope that our findings will raise an awareness of the steady increases in work among scientists before it affects our work-life balance even more.

0.042319655 = sum of:
  0.01795047 = product of:
    0.07180188 = sum of:
      0.07180188 = weight(_text_:authors in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07180188 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024369188 = product of:
    0.048738375 = sum of:
      0.048738375 = weight(_text_:g in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048738375 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052116565 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Characteristics of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology and 76 other journals listed in the InformationSystems category of the Journal Citation Reports-Science edition 2009 were analyzed. Besides reporting usual bibliographic indicators, we investigated the human cornerstone of any peer-reviewed journal: its editorial board. Demographic data about the 2,846 gatekeepers serving in information systems (IS) editorial boards were collected. We discuss various scientometric indicators supported by descriptive statistics. Our findings reflect the great variety of IS journals in terms of research output, author communities, editorial boards, and gatekeeper demographics (e.g., diversity in gender and location), seniority, authority, and degree of involvement in editorial boards. We believe that these results may help the general public and scholars (e.g., readers, authors, journal gatekeepers, policy makers) to revise and increase their knowledge of scholarly communication in the IS field. The EB_IS_2009 dataset supporting this scientometric study is released as online supplementary material to this article to foster further research on editorial boards.

0.010153829 = product of:
  0.020307658 = sum of:
    0.020307658 = product of:
      0.040615316 = sum of:
        0.040615316 = weight(_text_:g in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040615316 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)