Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Jahn, N."
  1. Horstmann, W.; Jahn, N.; Schmidt, B.: ¬Der Wandel der Informationspraxis in Forschung und Bibliothek (2015) 0.02 
    0.015082321 = product of:
  0.08672334 = sum of:
    0.027671441 = weight(_text_:und in 2534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027671441 = score(doc=2534,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.5297484 = fieldWeight in 2534, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2534)
    0.015522547 = product of:
      0.031045094 = sum of:
        0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031045094 = score(doc=2534,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2534, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031045094 = score(doc=2534,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2534, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2534)
    0.012484257 = weight(_text_:im in 2534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012484257 = score(doc=2534,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.18739122 = fieldWeight in 2534, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2534)
  0.17391305 = coord(4/23)
    Abstract
    Während Informationspraxis in Forschung und Bibliothek früher vom Umgang mit Literatur dominiert war, kommen heute viele neue Werkzeuge zum Einsatz. Office-Produkte, Datenbanken und Online-Plattformen verändern den Alltag in Forschung und Bibliothek und definieren zum Teil völlig neue Felder wissenschaftlicher Informationspraxis, z. B. im Kontext der Bibliometrie, virtueller Forschungsumgebungen oder Forschungsdaten. Der vorliegende Beitrag vergleicht die aktuelle Informationspraxis in der Forschung mit den Schulungsangeboten von Bibliotheken und weist nach, dass sich Forschung und Bibliothek zum Teil voneinander entkoppelt haben und ein zusammenhängendes Angebot zur Vermittlung wissenschaftlicher Informationspraxis am Campus in Gefahr ist. Um ein solches Angebot aufzubauen, wird vorgeschlagen, dass Bibliotheken sich mit Rechenzentren und Fakultäten zusammentun und die Bibliothek als Lernraum und zentralen Ort des wissenschaftlichen Informationsmanagements weiter etablieren. Dabei sollten neue Wege zum Aufbau von Expertise in der Informationspraxis von Bibliotheken beschritten werden, etwa die direkte Beteiligung an wissenschaftlichen Projekten, die Unterstützung von Eigeninitiative des Personals oder gezielte Rekrutierungsstrategien sowie der koordinierte Austausch zwischen Bibliotheken durch Experten und Materialien zu Spezialthemen.
    Source
    Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 62(2015) H.2, S.73-79
  2. Horstmann, W.; Jahn, N.: Persönliche Publikationslisten als hochschulweiter Dienst : eine Bestandsaufnahme (2010) 0.00 
    0.0037358245 = product of:
  0.04296198 = sum of:
    0.022154884 = weight(_text_:und in 5152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022154884 = score(doc=5152,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.42413816 = fieldWeight in 5152, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5152)
    0.020807097 = weight(_text_:im in 5152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020807097 = score(doc=5152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.3123187 = fieldWeight in 5152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5152)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    Die persönliche Publikationsliste im Internet ist eine wichtige wissenschaftliche Informationsquelle. Anhand einer Bestandsaufnahme wird der Frage nachgegangen, welche Unterstützungsleistungen Hochschulen und Bibliotheken ihren Forschenden anbieten können. Daraufhin werden strukturelle und funktionale Anforderungen entwickelt. Abschließend wird auf Instrumente für die Erreichung eines hochschulweiten Dienstes hingewiesen.
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 34(2010) H.2, S.185-193
  3. Hobert, A.; Jahn, N.; Mayr, P.; Schmidt, B.; Taubert, N.: Open access uptake in Germany 2010-2018 : adoption in a diverse research landscape (2021) 0.00 
    0.0036258886 = product of:
  0.02779848 = sum of:
    0.010232903 = weight(_text_:und in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010232903 = score(doc=250,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.011770271 = weight(_text_:im in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011770271 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.17667414 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.0057953056 = product of:
      0.011590611 = sum of:
        0.011590611 = weight(_text_:international in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011590611 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.14742646 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13043478 = coord(3/23)
    Abstract
    Es handelt sich um eine bibliometrische Untersuchung der Entwicklung der Open-Access-Verfügbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenartikel in Deutschland, die im Zeitraum 2010-18 erschienen und im Web of Science indexiert sind. Ein besonderes Augenmerk der Analyse lag auf der Frage, ob und inwiefern sich die Open-Access-Profile der Universitäten und außeruniversitären Wissenschaftseinrichtungen in Deutschland voneinander unterscheiden.
    Content
    This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.
    Footnote
    Den Aufsatz begleitet ein interaktives Datensupplement, mit dem sich die OA-Anteile auf Ebene der Einrichtung vergleichen lassen. https://subugoe.github.io/oauni/articles/supplement.html. Die Arbeit entstand in Zusammenarbeit der BMBF-Projekte OAUNI und OASE der Förderlinie "Quantitative Wissenschaftsforschung". https://www.wihoforschung.de/de/quantitative-wissenschaftsforschung-1573.php.
  4. Jahn, N.; Matthias, L.; Laakso, M.: Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher-provided metadata : an article-level study of Elsevier (2022) 0.00 
    0.0010420457 = product of:
  0.02396705 = sum of:
    0.02396705 = sum of:
      0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007856515 = score(doc=448,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
      0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016110536 = score(doc=448,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    16.12.2021 18:29:30
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.1, S.104-118

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

Themes