Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Who dunnit? : Metatags and hyperauthorship (2001)
0.03
0.025452837 = product of:
0.038179256 = sum of:
0.024176367 = weight(_text_:of in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024176367 = score(doc=6031,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
0.0140028875 = product of:
0.028005775 = sum of:
0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028005775 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Multiple authorship is a topic of growing concern in a number of scientific domains. When, as is increasingly common, scholarly articles and clinical reports have scores or even hundreds of authors-what Cronin (in press) has termed "hyperauthorship" -the precise nature of each individual's contribution is often masked. A notation that describes collaborators' contributions and allows those contributions to be tracked in, and across, texts (and over time) offers a solution. Such a notation should be useful, easy to use, and acceptable to communities of scientists. Drawing on earlier work, we present a proposal for an XML-like "contribution" mark-up, and discuss the potential benefits and possible drawbacks
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.770-773