Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0020808585 = product of:
  0.008323434 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=3574,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a content analysis framework and from that derive a process model of knowledge construction in the context of virtual product user communities, organization sponsored online forums where product users collaboratively construct knowledge to solve their technical problems. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a deductive and qualitative content analysis of discussion threads about solving technical problems selected from a series of virtual product user communities. Data are complemented with thematic analysis of interviews with forum members. Findings The research develops a content analysis framework for knowledge construction. It is based on a combination of existing codes derived from frameworks developed for computer-supported collaborative learning and new categories identified from the data. Analysis using this framework allows the authors to propose a knowledge construction process model showing how these elements are organized around a typical "trial and error" knowledge construction strategy. Practical implications The research makes suggestions about organizations' management of knowledge activities in virtual product user communities, including moderators' roles in facilitation. Originality/value The paper outlines a new framework for analysing knowledge activities where there is a low level of critical thinking and a model of knowledge construction by trial and error. The new framework and model can be applied in other similar contexts.

0.0014713892 = product of:
  0.005885557 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific "soundness" and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.