Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hartley, J."
  • × author_ss:"Kozak, M."
  1. Kozak, M.; Hartley, J.: Publication fees for open access journals : different disciplines-different methods (2013) 0.07 
    0.065064915 = sum of:
  0.041682497 = product of:
    0.16672999 = sum of:
      0.16672999 = weight(_text_:authors in 1140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16672999 = score(doc=1140,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.69792306 = fieldWeight in 1140, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1140)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02338242 = product of:
    0.04676484 = sum of:
      0.04676484 = weight(_text_:j in 1140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04676484 = score(doc=1140,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 1140, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1140)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Many authors appear to think that most open access (OA) journals charge authors for their publications. This brief communication examines the basis for such beliefs and finds it wanting. Indeed, in this study of over 9,000 OA journals included in the Directory of Open Access Journals, only 28% charged authors for publishing in their journals. This figure, however, was highest in various disciplines in medicine (47%) and the sciences (43%) and lowest in the humanities (4%) and the arts (0%).
  2. Tartanus, M.; Wnuk, A.; Kozak, M.; Hartley, J.: Graphs and prestige in agricultural journals (2013) 0.04 
    0.04151684 = sum of:
  0.021057224 = product of:
    0.084228896 = sum of:
      0.084228896 = weight(_text_:authors in 1051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084228896 = score(doc=1051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1051, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1051)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.020459617 = product of:
    0.040919233 = sum of:
      0.040919233 = weight(_text_:j in 1051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040919233 = score(doc=1051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.24574696 = fieldWeight in 1051, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1051)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article, we report on the status of graphs in 21 scientific agricultural journals indexed in Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge. We analyze the authors' use of graphs in this context in relation to the quality of these journals as measured by their 2-year impact factors. We note a substantial variability in the use of graphs in this context: For one journal, 100% of the papers include graphs, whereas for others only about 50% of them include graphs. We also show that higher impact agricultural journals publish more papers with graphs and that there are more graphs in these papers than in those in journals with lower impact factors (r = +0.40).
  3. Kozak, M.; Hartley, J.: Presenting numerical values within sentences and text tables (2012) 0.04 
    0.035585865 = sum of:
  0.018049048 = product of:
    0.07219619 = sum of:
      0.07219619 = weight(_text_:authors in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07219619 = score(doc=4968,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4968, 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=4968)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017536815 = product of:
    0.03507363 = sum of:
      0.03507363 = weight(_text_:j in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03507363 = score(doc=4968,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052402776 = queryNorm
          0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4968, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4968)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A text table is a simple table, with no or minimal chartlike elements, that is incorporated directly within a sentence. It can be very efficient in conveying quantitative (and sometimes qualitative) information that can be difficult to read within one or two sentences, but which is too simple to present within a regular table. Although this format has been used in the scientific literature, and indeed recommended in some sources, its effectiveness has not been studied in formal surveys. This article presents the results of one such survey in which three examples were considered. Scientists representing mathematics, statistics, and similar disciplines and scientists representing biology, agriculture, and similar disciplines were asked to participate in the survey; 189 representing the former and 201 representing the latter agreed. The results clearly showed for both groups, when the data presented were suitable for such a layout, that the text tables were much preferred to the original sentences. The main conclusion from this work, therefore, is that scientific authors should use text tables whenever appropriate.
  4. Hartley, J.; Cabanac, G.; Kozak, M.; Hubert, G.: Research on tables and graphs in academic articles : pitfalls and promises (2015) 0.01 
    0.01169121 = product of:
  0.02338242 = sum of:
    0.02338242 = product of:
      0.04676484 = sum of:
        0.04676484 = weight(_text_:j in 1637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04676484 = score(doc=1637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052402776 = queryNorm
            0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 1637, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  5. Kozak, M.; Iefremova, O.; Hartley, J.: Spamming in scholarly publishing : a case study (2016) 0.01 
    0.007307006 = product of:
  0.014614012 = sum of:
    0.014614012 = product of:
      0.029228024 = sum of:
        0.029228024 = weight(_text_:j in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029228024 = score(doc=3058,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052402776 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors

Themes