Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01989319 = product of:
  0.03978638 = sum of:
    0.03978638 = product of:
      0.15914552 = sum of:
        0.15914552 = weight(_text_:authors in 1140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15914552 = score(doc=1140,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = 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)
  0.5 = 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%).

0.017228007 = product of:
  0.034456015 = sum of:
    0.034456015 = product of:
      0.13782406 = sum of:
        0.13782406 = weight(_text_:authors in 1242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13782406 = score(doc=1242,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 1242, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1242)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The number of authors collaborating to write scientific articles has been increasing steadily, and with this collaboration, other factors have also changed, such as the length of articles and the number of citations. However, little is known about potential discrepancies in the use of tables and graphs between single and collaborating authors. In this article, we ask whether multiauthor articles contain more tables and graphs than single-author articles, and we studied 5,180 recent articles published in six science and social sciences journals. We found that pairs and multiple authors used significantly more tables and graphs than single authors. Such findings indicate that there is a greater emphasis on the role of tables and graphs in collaborative writing, and we discuss some of the possible causes and implications of these findings.

0.01694221 = product of:
  0.03388442 = sum of:
    0.03388442 = product of:
      0.06776884 = sum of:
        0.06776884 = weight(_text_:22 in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06776884 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.1, S.3-10

0.01218204 = product of:
  0.02436408 = sum of:
    0.02436408 = product of:
      0.09745632 = sum of:
        0.09745632 = weight(_text_:authors in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09745632 = score(doc=996,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = 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)
  0.5 = 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.

0.010165325 = product of:
  0.02033065 = sum of:
    0.02033065 = product of:
      0.0406613 = sum of:
        0.0406613 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406613 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37

0.010151701 = product of:
  0.020303402 = sum of:
    0.020303402 = product of:
      0.08121361 = sum of:
        0.08121361 = weight(_text_:authors in 195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08121361 = score(doc=195,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 195, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=195)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reading and writing book reviews for learned journals plays an important part in academic life but little is known about how academics carry out these tasks. The aim of this research was to explore these activities with academics from the arts and humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. An electronic questionnaire was used to ascertain (a) how often the respondents read and wrote book reviews, (b) how useful they found them, and (c) what features they thought important in book reviews. Fifty-two academics in the arts, 53 in the social sciences, and 51 in the sciences replied. There were few disciplinary differences. Most respondents reported reading between one and five book reviews a month and writing between one and two a year. There was high overall agreement between what the respondents thought were important features of book reviews, but there were also wide individual differences between them. This agreement across the disciplines supports the notion that book reviews can be seen as an academic genre with measurable features. This has implications for how they are written, and how authors might be taught to write them better. A potential checklist for authors is suggested.

0.01004967 = product of:
  0.02009934 = sum of:
    0.02009934 = product of:
      0.08039736 = sum of:
        0.08039736 = weight(_text_:authors in 1051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08039736 = score(doc=1051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = 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)
  0.5 = 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).

0.008614004 = product of:
  0.017228007 = sum of:
    0.017228007 = product of:
      0.06891203 = sum of:
        0.06891203 = weight(_text_:authors in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06891203 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3115, 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=3115)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Detailed checklists and questionnaires have been used in the past to assess the quality of structured abstracts in the medical sciences. The aim of this article is to report the findings when a simpler checklist was used to evaluate the quality of 100 traditional abstracts published in 53 different social science journals. Most of these abstracts contained information about the aims, methods, and results of the studies. However, many did not report details about the sample sizes, ages, or sexes of the participants, or where the research was carried out. The correlation between the lengths of the abstracts and the amount of information present was 0.37 (p < .001), suggesting that word limits for abstracts may restrict the presence of key information to some extent. We conclude that authors can improve the quality of information in traditional abstracts in the social sciences by using the simple checklist provided in this article.

0.008614004 = product of:
  0.017228007 = sum of:
    0.017228007 = product of:
      0.06891203 = sum of:
        0.06891203 = weight(_text_:authors in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06891203 = score(doc=4968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22802731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = 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)
  0.5 = 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.

0.008471105 = product of:
  0.01694221 = sum of:
    0.01694221 = product of:
      0.03388442 = sum of:
        0.03388442 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03388442 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17515801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050019 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356