Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0010357446 = product of:
  0.0119110625 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 2551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=2551,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 2551, 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=2551)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007982805 = product of:
      0.01596561 = sum of:
        0.01596561 = weight(_text_:22 in 2551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01596561 = score(doc=2551,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2551, 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=2551)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

Source

Journal of librarianship and information science. 33(2001) no.1, S.32-38

3.5022903E-4 = product of:
  0.008055268 = sum of:
    0.008055268 = product of:
      0.016110536 = sum of:
        0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 3096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016110536 = score(doc=3096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3096, 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=3096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

As open access (OA) publication of research outputs becomes increasingly common and is mandated by institutions and research funders, it is important to understand different aspects of the costs involved. This paper provides an early review of administrative costs incurred by universities in making research outputs OA, either via publication in journals ("Gold" OA), involving payment of article-processing charges (APCs), or via deposit in repositories ("Green" OA). Using data from 29 UK institutions, it finds that the administrative time, as well as the cost incurred by universities, to make an article OA using the Gold route is over 2.5 times higher than Green. Costs are then modeled at a national level using recent UK policy initiatives from Research Councils UK and the Higher Education Funding Councils' Research Excellence Framework as case studies. The study also demonstrates that the costs of complying with research funders' OA policies are considerably higher than where an OA publication is left entirely to authors' discretion. Key target areas for future efficiencies in the business processes are identified and potential cost savings calculated. The analysis is designed to inform ongoing policy development at the institutional and national levels.

3.149623E-4 = product of:
  0.0072441325 = sum of:
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 3791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=3791,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 3791, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3791)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

This article reports an international study of research data management (RDM) activities, services, and capabilities in higher education libraries. It presents the results of a survey covering higher education libraries in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK. The results indicate that libraries have provided leadership in RDM, particularly in advocacy and policy development. Service development is still limited, focused especially on advisory and consultancy services (such as data management planning support and data-related training), rather than technical services (such as provision of a data catalog, and curation of active data). Data curation skills development is underway in libraries, but skills and capabilities are not consistently in place and remain a concern. Other major challenges include resourcing, working with other support services, and achieving "buy in" from researchers and senior managers. Results are compared with previous studies in order to assess trends and relative maturity levels. The range of RDM activities explored in this study are positioned on a "landscape maturity model," which reflects current and planned research data services and practice in academic libraries, representing a "snapshot" of current developments and a baseline for future research.

3.149623E-4 = product of:
  0.0072441325 = sum of:
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=5317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open-access (OA) business model, and "soundness-only" peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their "soundness." This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n = 11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness-only peer review: two-thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a "cascade" of articles between journals from the same publisher.

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=3797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3797, 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=3797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

This paper reports analysis of data from higher education institutions in the UK on their experience of the open-access (OA) publishing market working within a policy environment favoring "Gold" OA (OA publishing in journals). It models the "total cost of publication"-comprising costs of journal subscriptions, OA article-processing charges (APCs), and new administrative costs-for a sample of 24 institutions. APCs are shown to constitute 12% of the "total cost of publication," APC administration, 1%, and subscriptions, 87% (for a sample of seven publishers). APC expenditure in institutions rose between 2012 and 2014 at the same time as rising subscription costs. There was disproportionately high take up of Gold options for Health and Life Sciences articles. APC prices paid varied widely, with a mean APC of £1,586 in 2014. "Hybrid" options (subscription journals also offering OA for individual articles on payment of an APC) were considerably more expensive than fully OA titles, but the data indicate a correlation between APC price and journal quality (as reflected in the citation rates of journals). The policy implications of these developments are explored, particularly in relation to hybrid OA and potential of offsetting subscription and APC costs.

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4627, 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=4627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of documentation. 75(2019) no.1, S.120-139