Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027157031 = product of:
  0.054314062 = sum of:
    0.054314062 = product of:
      0.108628124 = sum of:
        0.108628124 = weight(_text_:report in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108628124 = score(doc=3115,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.44566542 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

0.022403408 = product of:
  0.044806816 = sum of:
    0.044806816 = product of:
      0.08961363 = sum of:
        0.08961363 = weight(_text_:report in 1051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08961363 = score(doc=1051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.36765522 = fieldWeight in 1051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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).

0.019202922 = product of:
  0.038405843 = sum of:
    0.038405843 = product of:
      0.076811686 = sum of:
        0.076811686 = weight(_text_:report in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076811686 = score(doc=2383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.31513304 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

BLRD report; 6211

0.017367238 = product of:
  0.034734476 = sum of:
    0.034734476 = product of:
      0.06946895 = sum of:
        0.06946895 = weight(_text_:22 in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06946895 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17955218 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = 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

0.016002435 = product of:
  0.03200487 = sum of:
    0.03200487 = product of:
      0.06400974 = sum of:
        0.06400974 = weight(_text_:report in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06400974 = score(doc=2362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24374367 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = queryNorm
            0.26261088 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7537646 = idf(docFreq=1035, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many writers of structured abstracts spend a good deal of time revising and polishing their texts - but is it worth it? Do readers notice the difference? In this paper we report three studies of readers using rating scales to judge (electronically) the clarity of an original and a revised abstract, both as a whole and in its constituent parts. In Study 1, with approximately 250 academics and research workers, we found some significant differences in favor of the revised abstract, but in Study 2, with approximately 210 information scientists, we found no significant effects. Pooling the data from Studies 1 and 2, however, in Study 3, led to significant differences at a higher probability level between the perception of the original and revised abstract as a whole and between the same components as found in Study 1. These results thus indicate that the revised abstract as a whole, as well as certain specific components of it, were judged significantly clearer than the original one. In short, the results of these experiments show that readers can and do perceive differences between original and revised texts - sometimes - and that therefore these efforts are worth the time and effort.

0.010420342 = product of:
  0.020840684 = sum of:
    0.020840684 = product of:
      0.041681368 = sum of:
        0.041681368 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041681368 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17955218 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = 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

0.008683619 = product of:
  0.017367238 = sum of:
    0.017367238 = product of:
      0.034734476 = sum of:
        0.034734476 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034734476 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17955218 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05127382 = 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