Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029648092 = product of:
  0.059296183 = sum of:
    0.031425897 = weight(_text_:library in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031425897 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
    0.027870288 = product of:
      0.055740576 = sum of:
        0.055740576 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055740576 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20581327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = 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)

Content

Eine englische Version dieses Beitrags erscheint unter dem Titel "International visibility of European and in particular German language publications in library and information science" im Tagungsband des 13. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2013). Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2013.64.issue-1/iwp-2013-0001/iwp-2013-0001.xml?format=INT.

Date

22. 3.2013 14:04:09

0.015712949 = product of:
  0.062851794 = sum of:
    0.062851794 = weight(_text_:library in 1099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062851794 = score(doc=1099,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 1099, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1099)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Presents a prototype for a hypertext-based library catalogue using the experience of the Department of Information Science at the University of Graz and the Department of Library and Information Sience at the Eötvös-Lorand University, Budapest. Following an historical overview of the development of the hypertext concept and the benefits resulting from a hypercatalogue, the hypertext structure of the catalogue and its functionality are described. Prospects for the future are also outlined

Source

Electronic library and visual information research: Proceedings of the 4th ELVIRA Conference (ELVIRA 4), Electronic Library and Visual Information Research, De Montfort University, Milton Keynes, May 1997. Ed. by C. Davies u. A. Ramsden

0.009523485 = product of:
  0.03809394 = sum of:
    0.03809394 = weight(_text_:library in 2767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03809394 = score(doc=2767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2767, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2767)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Informationswissenschaft wird üblicherweise als Weiterentwicklung des Bereiches Bibliothek, Information und Dokumentation unter dem Einfluss der neuen elektronischen Medien gesehen. Im anglo-amerikanischen Raum entstand sie als Weiterentwicklung der "Library Science" zu "Library and Information Sciences". Damit ist die Informationswissenschaft ein vorwiegend geisteswissenschaftliches Konzept, im deutschen Sprachraum oft mit philosophischem oder philologischem Hintergrund. Neue technische Möglichkeiten sollten für bekannte Fragestellungen, insbesondere im Bereich des Information Retrieval, genutzt werden. Etwas anders ist die Entwicklung in Österreich verlaufen. Das erste Institut, das die Bezeichnung "Informationswissenschaft" im Titel trägt, wurde an einer Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät 1987 eingerichtet: das Institut für Informationswissenschaft an der Karl-Franzens-Universität in Graz (Rauch, 1988). Nach diesem Selbstverständnis kann die Informationswissenschaft als jene Disziplin betrachtet werden, die sich mit "Informationsprozessen und -problemen in Wissenschaft, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Verwaltung" befasst (Zimmermann, 1983).

0.006967572 = product of:
  0.027870288 = sum of:
    0.027870288 = product of:
      0.055740576 = sum of:
        0.055740576 = weight(_text_:22 in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055740576 = score(doc=3677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20581327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = 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

0.0049768374 = product of:
  0.01990735 = sum of:
    0.01990735 = product of:
      0.0398147 = sum of:
        0.0398147 = weight(_text_:22 in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0398147 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20581327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.004489414 = product of:
  0.017957656 = sum of:
    0.017957656 = weight(_text_:library in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017957656 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.