Search (30 results, page 2 of 2)

0.004640601 = product of:
  0.023203006 = sum of:
    0.023203006 = product of:
      0.046406012 = sum of:
        0.046406012 = weight(_text_:information in 2548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046406012 = score(doc=2548,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.5701082 = fieldWeight in 2548, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

COMPASS

Information systems

Footnote

Rez. in: Managing information. 3(1996) no.6, S.47 (C. Smith)

LCSH

Information technology

Subject

Information technology
Information systems

0.004303226 = product of:
  0.010758064 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=3597,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=3597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1201-1211

Type

a

0.0039382176 = product of:
  0.009845544 = sum of:
    0.005898632 = weight(_text_:a in 2030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005898632 = score(doc=2030,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2030, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2030)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 2030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=2030,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2030, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Analyses some of the components of graphical user interfaces (GUI), applied to CD-ROM databases (windows, dialogue boxes, menus, commands, buttons, check boxes and icons) and remarks on the degree to which these are based on Windows software. Notes the constraints to GUIs that still remain even after databases have appeared in the marketplace: particularly mouse based problems. Discusses ways of evaluating GUIs and their specific components and reports a study of databases in which these types of interfaces are used. Notes the significant variability between products in the way that they apply GUIs and discusses whether database users would benefit from a certain degree of standardization in the basic interface structure using GUIs, or whether users would prefer greater control over the design of the local user interface. Concludes that the introduction of Windows based CD-ROM databases with graphical user interfaces will increasingly revolutionize the design of such databases. Makes 3 recommendations that would aim to enhance the user friendliness of CD-ROM interfaces: research to develop criteria for evaluating interfaces in the GUI environment; standardization of interface design between some products, particular for novice users; and facilities to allow experienced users to develop and tailor their own interface design

Source

Journal of librarianship and information science. 27(1995) no.2, S.77-87

Type

a

0.0031575288 = product of:
  0.015787644 = sum of:
    0.015787644 = product of:
      0.03157529 = sum of:
        0.03157529 = weight(_text_:information in 3044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03157529 = score(doc=3044,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.38790947 = fieldWeight in 3044, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=3044)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0028606844 = product of:
  0.014303422 = sum of:
    0.014303422 = weight(_text_:a in 8720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014303422 = score(doc=8720,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.26752928 = fieldWeight in 8720, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8720)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

GENESIS, from SCG, the supplier of the well established library management system BookshelF, is one of the first library management systems to run as a Windows product with a graphical user interface (GUI), and as such is one of the front runners of the next generation of library management systems. The article commences with a brief review of the characteristics of GUI-based systems and proceeds to examine the characteristics of GENESIS. GENSIS is based on a new database environment but retains the same package of modules a BookshelF: Catalogue, Circulation, Thesuaurs, System Defintions, Acquisistion, Serials, Management reporting and System Administration. The GUI interface is simple and easy to use. GENESIS has many of the the features that will characterise a new generation of library management systems

Type

a

0.0025260232 = product of:
  0.012630116 = sum of:
    0.012630116 = product of:
      0.025260232 = sum of:
        0.025260232 = weight(_text_:information in 319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025260232 = score(doc=319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 319, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0019264851 = product of:
  0.009632425 = sum of:
    0.009632425 = weight(_text_:a in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009632425 = score(doc=4541,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to highlight limits to the dominant model of social inclusion under which UK public libraries operate, to analyse how and to what extent processes of socio-cultural exclusion emerge in the subject representation and discoverability of "non-dominant" resources in public library OPACs, and to consider folksonomy as a solution to any issues raised. Design/methodology/approach - The paper first develops a critique of the dominant model of "inclusion" within UK public libraries, drawing on feminist and critical theories of identity. It then considers how this critique overlaps with and offers fresh insights into major debates within subject indexing, and develops a theoretical rationale for considering the potential of folksonomy to intervene in more inclusive subject-indexing design. A user-based critical interpretive methodology which understands OPACs as texts open to multiple interpretations is developed, and a comparative reading of standard OPACs and LibraryThing folksonomy is undertaken to evaluate the discoverability and subject representation of LGBTQ and ethnic minority resources. Findings - LibraryThing folksonomy offers benefits over LCSH subject indexing in the discoverability and representation of LGBTQ resources. However, the folksonomy is dominated by US taggers, and this impacts on the tagging of ethnic minority resources. Folksonomy, like traditional indexing, is found to contain its own biases in worldview and subject representation. Originality/value - The importance of subject indexing in developing inclusive library services is highlighted and a new method for evaluating OPACs is developed.

Type

a

0.001651617 = product of:
  0.008258085 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 4502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=4502,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4502, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4502)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Library managers are often concerned to assess the most cost effective means of access to bibliographic data. Considers comparative prices for bibliographic data on CD-ROM and in print form. In many instances, CD-ROM offers added value and easier access to data, but the relative cost is important. Library managers need not only to compare prices but to consider cost effectiveness. Differences between the nature of bibliographic data on CD-ROM and in a printed bibliography or in abstracting and indexing service, and the relative complexities of pricing structures for bibliographic data in both CD-ROM and printed form, where both hinder comparisons. Varying policies on network pricing are an added complication when assessing CD-ROM service. Concludes that some standardization of aspects of the licensing arrangements would be welcome

Type

a

0.0014156717 = product of:
  0.007078358 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 3897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=3897,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3897, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3897)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Explores the relationship between costs and pricing strategies in the publishing of print andelectronic documents, with a view to identifying the cost factors that may influence the viability of electronic documents, in the context of reference and bibliographic databases. Presents an overview of the different approaches that publishers can take to the management of the relationship between pricing, costs and value. Discusses 3 categories of costs associated with the production of electronic and print products: database costs; distribution media costs: and overhead costs. In assessing the viability of electronic publishing it is important to recognize that it is not sufficient to seek to identify whether print or electronic documents are the cheaper to produce, but to consider all costs and to view the elctronic product in its context as part of a publishing portfolio

Type

a

9.5356145E-4 = product of:
  0.004767807 = sum of:
    0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 7427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004767807 = score(doc=7427,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 7427, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7427)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a