Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0072134426 = product of:
  0.050494097 = sum of:
    0.045449268 = weight(_text_:wide in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045449268 = score(doc=5317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=5317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5317, 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=5317)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open-access (OA) business model, and "soundness-only" peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their "soundness." This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n = 11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness-only peer review: two-thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a "cascade" of articles between journals from the same publisher.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.7, S.754-768

0.004529155 = product of:
  0.031704083 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=969,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 969, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=969)
    0.014268933 = weight(_text_:information in 969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014268933 = score(doc=969,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 969, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=969)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper deals with information needs, seeking, searching, and uses within scholarly communities by introducing theory from the field of science and technology studies. In particular it contributes to the domain-analytic approach in information science by showing that Whitley's theory of 'mutual dependence' and 'task uncertainty' can be used as an explanatory framework in understanding similarity and difference in information practices across intellectual fields. Based on qualitative case studies of three specialist scholarly communities across the physical sciences, applied sciences, social sciences and arts and humanities, this paper extends Whitley's theory into the realm of information communication technologies. The paper adopts a holistic approach to information practices by recognising the interrelationship between the traditions of informal and formal scientific communication and how it shapes digital outcomes across intellectual fields. The findings show that communities inhabiting fields with a high degree of 'mutual dependence' coupled with a low degree of 'task uncertainty' are adept at coordinating and controlling channels of communication and will readily co-produce field-based digital information resources, whereas communities that inhabit fields characterised by the opposite cultural configuration, a low degree of 'mutual dependence' coupled with a high degree of 'task uncertainty', are less successful in commanding control over channels of communication and are less concerned with co-producing field-based digital resources and integrating them into their epistemic and social structures. These findings have implications for the culturally sensitive development and provision of academic digital resources such as digital libraries and web-based subject portals.

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.1, S.299-316

0.0035099457 = product of:
  0.02456962 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Currently, there exists little evidence concerning how various characteristics of research cultures are associated with patterns of use of electronic library resources. The present study addresses this gap by exploring how research-group membership, across-fields scattering of literature, and degree of establishment of research area are related to patterns of digital library use. The analytic dimensions are derived from Richard Whitley's ([1984]) theory of the social and intellectual organization of academic fields. The article represents a first attempt to operationalize Whitley's concepts in a large-scale study of e-resources use. The data used in the study were gathered in 2004 by the Finnish Electronic Library (FinElib) through a nationwide Web-based user questionnaire (N = 900). Membership in a research group significantly increased searching in journal databases, the importance of colleagues as sources of information about electronic articles and journals, and the use of alert services. A significant interaction effect was found between degree of across-fields scattering of relevant resources and degree of establishment of research fields. A high degree of across-fields scattering of relevant literature increased the number of journal databases used mainly in less established research areas whereas it influenced the use of journal databases less in established fields. This research contributes to our picture concerning the complex set of interacting factors influencing patterns of use of e-resources.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1674-1685

0.0011280583 = product of:
  0.015792815 = sum of:
    0.015792815 = weight(_text_:information in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015792815 = score(doc=1969,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

New mass publishing genres, such as blogs and personal home pages provide a rich source of social data that is yet to be fully exploited by the social sciences and humanities. Information-centered research (ICR) not only provides a genuinely new and useful information science research model for this type of data, but can also contribute to the emerging e-research infrastructure. Nevertheless, ICR should not be conducted on a purely abstract level, but should relate to potentially relevant problems.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1523-1527

9.962944E-4 = product of:
  0.013948122 = sum of:
    0.013948122 = weight(_text_:web in 2681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013948122 = score(doc=2681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2681)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to discuss the question of "openness" in e-Science. Design/methodology/approach - The study is based on 12 in-depth interviews with principal investigators, project managers and developers involved in UK e-Science projects, together with supporting documentary evidence from project web sites. The approach was to explore the juxtaposition of research governance at the institutional level and local research practices at the project level. Interview questions focused on research inputs, software development processes, access to resources, project documentation, dissemination of outputs and by-products, licensing issues, and institutional contracts. Findings - The findings suggest that, although there is a widely shared ethos of openness in everyday research practice, there are many uncertainties and yet-to-be resolved issues, despite strong policy imperatives towards openly shared resources. Research limitations/implications - The paper concludes by observing a stratification of openness in practice and the need for more nuanced understanding of openness at the level of policy making. This research was based on interviews within a limited number of e-Science/Social Science projects and the intention is to address this in future work by scaling the study up to a survey that will reach the entire UK e-Science/Social Science community. Practical implications - The fundamental challenge in resolving openness in practice and policy, and thereby moving towards a sustainable infrastructure for e-Science, is the coordination and integration of goals across e-Science efforts, rather than one of resolving IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) issues, which has been the central focus of openness debates thus far. Originality/value - The question of openness has previously been posed on the macro-level of research policy, e.g. whether science as a whole can be characterized as open science, or in relation to the dissemination of published outputs, e.g. Open Access. Instead, a fine-grained perspective is taken focusing on individual research projects and the various facets of openness in practice.

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3154, 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=3154)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.11, S.2710-2724