Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019354446 = product of:
  0.03870889 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 3989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=3989,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 3989, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3989)
    0.009055263 = product of:
      0.018110527 = sum of:
        0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 3989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018110527 = score(doc=3989,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3989, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3989)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study investigated factors that motivate or impede faculty participation in self-archiving practices-the placement of research work in various open access (OA) venues, ranging from personal Web pages to OA archives. The author's research design involves triangulation of survey and interview data from 17 Carnegie doctorate universities with DSpace institutional repositories. The analysis of survey responses from 684 professors and 41 telephone interviews identified seven significant factors: (a) altruism-the idea of providing OA benefits for users; (b) perceived self-archiving culture; (c) copyright concerns; (d) technical skills; (e) age; (f) perception of no harmful impact of self-archiving on tenure and promotion; and (g) concerns about additional time and effort. The factors are listed in descending order of their effect size. Age, copyright concerns, and additional time and effort are negatively associated with self-archiving, whereas remaining factors are positively related to it. Faculty are motivated by OA advantages to users, disciplinary norms, and no negative influence on academic reward. However, barriers to self-archiving-concerns about copyright, extra time and effort, technical ability, and age-imply that the provision of services to assist faculty with copyright management, and with technical and logistical issues, could encourage higher rates of self-archiving.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1909-1922

0.0045276317 = product of:
  0.018110527 = sum of:
    0.018110527 = product of:
      0.036221053 = sum of:
        0.036221053 = weight(_text_:science in 4678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036221053 = score(doc=4678,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4678, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Conference publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet, unlike other science fields where journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One frequent research question has been how different conference and journal publications are, considering an article as a unit of analysis. This study takes an author-based approach to analyze the publishing patterns of 517,763 scholars who have ever published both in CS conferences and journals for the last 57 years, as recorded in DBLP. The analysis shows that the majority of CS scholars tend to make their scholarly debut, publish more articles, and collaborate with more coauthors in conferences than in journals. Importantly, conference articles seem to serve as a distinct channel of scholarly communication, not a mere preceding step to journal publications: coauthors and title words of authors across conferences and journals tend not to overlap much. This study corroborates findings of previous studies on this topic from a distinctive perspective and suggests that conference authorship in CS calls for more special attention from scholars and administrators outside CS who have focused on journal publications to mine authorship data and evaluate scholarly performance.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.1, S.71-82

0.0032015191 = product of:
  0.012806077 = sum of:
    0.012806077 = product of:
      0.025612153 = sum of:
        0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 2936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025612153 = score(doc=2936,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2936, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Scholars have often relied on name initials to resolve name ambiguities in large-scale coauthorship network research. This approach bears the risk of incorrectly merging or splitting author identities. The use of initial-based disambiguation has been justified by the assumption that such errors would not affect research findings too much. This paper tests that assumption by analyzing coauthorship networks from five academic fields-biology, computer science, nanoscience, neuroscience, and physics-and an interdisciplinary journal, PNAS. Name instances in data sets of this study were disambiguated based on heuristics gained from previous algorithmic disambiguation solutions. We use disambiguated data as a proxy of ground-truth to test the performance of three types of initial-based disambiguation. Our results show that initial-based disambiguation can misrepresent statistical properties of coauthorship networks: It deflates the number of unique authors, number of components, average shortest paths, clustering coefficient, and assortativity, while it inflates average productivity, density, average coauthor number per author, and largest component size. Also, on average, more than half of top 10 productive or collaborative authors drop off the lists. Asian names were found to account for the majority of misidentification by initial-based disambiguation due to their common surname and given name initials.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.6, S.1446-1461

0.0022638158 = product of:
  0.009055263 = sum of:
    0.009055263 = product of:
      0.018110527 = sum of:
        0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 1666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018110527 = score(doc=1666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.3, S.526-544

0.0022638158 = product of:
  0.009055263 = sum of:
    0.009055263 = product of:
      0.018110527 = sum of:
        0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018110527 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2685-2696

0.0022638158 = product of:
  0.009055263 = sum of:
    0.009055263 = product of:
      0.018110527 = sum of:
        0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 3148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018110527 = score(doc=3148,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3148, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3148)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.11, S.2607-2619

0.0022638158 = product of:
  0.009055263 = sum of:
    0.009055263 = product of:
      0.018110527 = sum of:
        0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 5297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018110527 = score(doc=5297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 5297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.7, S.685-700