Stock, W.G.; Schlögl, C.: Practitioners and academics as authors and readers : the case of LIS journals (2008)
0.02
0.018020596 = product of:
0.067577235 = sum of:
0.012723906 = product of:
0.025447812 = sum of:
0.025447812 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025447812 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.19700313 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.025987646 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025987646 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.1990817 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
0.025447812 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025447812 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.19700313 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
0.003417871 = product of:
0.006835742 = sum of:
0.006835742 = weight(_text_:information in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006835742 = score(doc=2343,freq=6.0), product of:
0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.
- Field
- Bibliothekswesen
Informationswissenschaft
Dreisiebner, S.; Schlögl, C.: Assessing disciplinary differences in information literacy teaching materials (2019)
0.00
0.002114309 = product of:
0.031714633 = sum of:
0.031714633 = sum of:
0.012083998 = weight(_text_:information in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012083998 = score(doc=5495,freq=12.0), product of:
0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 5495, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5495)
0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019630633 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5495, 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=5495)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to uncover similarities and differences among emphasized information literacy (IL) skills for the disciplines of political- and social sciences, economics, educational sciences, law sciences, mathematics, life sciences, history and German studies, based on an analysis of IL teaching materials. Design/methodology/approach Eight issues of the German language publication series Erfolgreich recherchieren (Succesful Research Strategies) are compared by using a structuring content analysis. The category system is based on the IL standards and performance indicators of the Association of College and Research Libraries (2000), extended with additional categories. Findings The results, first, suggest that the biggest similarities and differences among the disciplines are found concerning the determination of the nature and extent of the needed information, especially in the area of identifying potential sources of information. Second, some of the disciplines focus more on international sources, whereas others focus on country- and language-specific sources. Third, the criteria to define the appropriate retrieval system differ among the various disciplines. Fourth, approaches to narrow the search results differ among the various disciplines. Fifth, the critical evaluation of sources is addressed in all disciplines but relates to different contexts. Research limitations/implications This approach only addresses one book per discipline out of a German language book series. Further research is needed. Originality/value This paper is unique in its approach and one of few papers on disciplinary differences in IL perception.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Footnote
- Beitag in einem Special Issue: Information Science in the German-speaking Countries
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 71(2019) no.3, S.392-414
