Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032083966 = product of:
  0.06416793 = sum of:
    0.04072366 = weight(_text_:web in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072366 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
    0.023444273 = product of:
      0.046888545 = sum of:
        0.046888545 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046888545 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag wird eine Publikationsanalyse von Beiträgen in von im Web of Science (WoS) indexierten bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften vorgestellt. Die Ergebnisse dieser Analyse bestätigen die anglo-amerikanische Dominanz in der facheinschlägigen Literatur, die bei den primär informationswissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften sogar noch deutlicher ausfällt. Die skandinavischen Länder und der Bereich der Szientometrie stellen gewisse Ausnahmen dar. Die internationale Sichtbarkeit Deutschlands und Österreichs ist hingegen "ausbaufähig".

Date

22. 3.2013 14:04:09

0.024869673 = product of:
  0.049739346 = sum of:
    0.032993436 = weight(_text_:search in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032993436 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 5495, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5495)
    0.01674591 = product of:
      0.03349182 = sum of:
        0.03349182 = weight(_text_:22 in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03349182 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.010180915 = product of:
  0.04072366 = sum of:
    0.04072366 = weight(_text_:web in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072366 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag werden am Beispiel von Onkologie- und Pharmaziezeitschriften Unterschiede zwischen und Gemeinsamkeiten von Downloads und Zitaten herausgearbeitet. Die Download-Daten wurden von Elsevier (ScienceDirect) bereitgestellt, die Zitationsdaten wurden den Journal Citation Reports entnommen bzw. aus dem Web of Science recherchiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen einen hohen Zusammenhang zwischen Download- und Zitationshäufigkeiten, der für die relativen Zeitschriftenindikatoren und auf Artikelebene etwas geringer ist. Deutliche Unterschiede bestehen hingegen zwischen den Altersstrukturen der herunter-geladenen und der zitierten Artikel. Elektronische Zeitschriften haben maßgeblich dazu beigetragen, dass aktuelle Literatur früher aufgegriffen und deutlich öfter zitiert wird, im Schnitt hat sich das Alter der zitierten Literatur in den letzten zehn Jahren aber kaum verändert.

0.005861068 = product of:
  0.023444273 = sum of:
    0.023444273 = product of:
      0.046888545 = sum of:
        0.046888545 = weight(_text_:22 in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046888545 = score(doc=3677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2017 18:04:28