Search (352 results, page 2 of 18)

0.020311622 = product of:
  0.030467432 = sum of:
    0.0074199745 = weight(_text_:a in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=741,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=741,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 to 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon and Björk. Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data are drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data. Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC, and pricing trends. Half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation. The university sector may be the most promising approach to economically sustainable no-fee OA journals. Universities publish many OA journals, nearly half of OA articles, tend not to charge APCs and when APCs are charged, the prices are very low on average.

Type

a

0.019862993 = product of:
  0.029794488 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
    0.024485188 = product of:
      0.048970375 = sum of:
        0.048970375 = weight(_text_:22 in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048970375 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:00:52

Type

a

0.01978939 = product of:
  0.029684084 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=4399,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4399, 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=4399)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses the social and economic factors involved in the implementation of the electronic library. Discusses the ways in which the library metaphor may be restricitng thinking and the development of systems that may approach more closely the ideals of scholarly communication. Such a system not only necessitates new models for the concepts of periodical, library and publishing, but also new interpersonal and institutional practices, and a new basis for the economic conditions associated with communication. Electronic communication systems offer the possibility not only of disseminating information over networks but of interpersonal communication among collaborating authors or producers and, perhaps more important, between author, reader, user or consumer of the information. For example, electronic mail forms included in electronic periodicals along data discussed in the articles could lead to the evolution of electronic periodicals into electronic seminars or electronic common rooms. Poses the question of whether commercial publishers will be able to find a role to play in this process and fails to suggest an answer

Source

Electronic library and visual information research: Proceedings of the Second ELVIRA Conference (ELVIRA 2), Electronic Library and Visual Information Research, De Montfort University, Milton Keynes, May 1995. Ed. by M. Collier u, K. Arnold

Type

a

0.018745132 = product of:
  0.028117698 = sum of:
    0.009753809 = weight(_text_:a in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009753809 = score(doc=2757,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article focuses on the process of scientific and scholarly communication. Data on open access publications on the Internet not only provides a supplement to the traditional citation indexes but also enables analysis of the microprocesses and daily practices that constitute scientific communication. This article focuses on a stage in the life cycle of scientific and scholarly information that precedes the publication of formal research articles in the scientific and scholarly literature. Binomial logistic regression models are used to analyse precise mechanisms at work in the transformation of a working paper (WP) into a journal article (JA) in the field of economics. The study unveils a fine-grained process of adapting WPs to their new context as JAs by deleting and adding literature references, which perhaps can be best captured by the term sculpting.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:59:25

Type

a

0.018662978 = product of:
  0.027994465 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, 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=4198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07

Type

a

0.018178573 = product of:
  0.027267858 = sum of:
    0.00890397 = weight(_text_:a in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00890397 = score(doc=3662,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A review of recent developments in electronic publishing, with a focus on Open Access (OA) is provided. It describes the two main types of OA, i.e. the `gold' OA journal route and the 'green' repository route, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the two, and the reactions of the publishing industry to these developments. Quality, cost and copyright issues are explored, as well as some of the business models of OA. It is noted that whilst so far there is no evidence that a shift to OA will lead to libraries cancelling subscriptions to toll-access journals, this may happen in the future, and that despite the apparently compelling reasons for authors to move to OA, so far few have shown themselves willing to do so. Conclusions about the future of scholarly publications are drawn.

Date

8. 7.2010 19:22:45

Source

Information science in transition, Ed.: A. Gilchrist

Type

a

0.016840585 = product of:
  0.025260875 = sum of:
    0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006896985 = score(doc=1871,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1871, 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=1871)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Chemical information sciences-ranging from subjectspecific bibliometrics to sophisticated theoretical systems for modeling structures and reactions-have historically led in developing new technologies. Hundreds of papers are published or presented at conferences annually in this discipline. One of the more significant conferences at which important research has historically been presented is the Tri-Society Symposium an Chemical Information, an event jointly sponsored by the American Chemical Society, the American Society for Information Science and Technology, and the Special Libraries Association and held every four years. Eight years ago, the theme of this conference was the chemist's workstation; papers were presented an developments enabling chemists to access and process a variety of different types of chemical information from their desktop or laboratory bench. Several of these papers were subsequently published as a Perspectives issue.

Date

19.10.2003 17:17:22

Type

a

0.016249297 = product of:
  0.024373945 = sum of:
    0.00593598 = weight(_text_:a in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00593598 = score(doc=250,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.018437965 = product of:
      0.03687593 = sum of:
        0.03687593 = weight(_text_:de in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687593 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.18992399 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

Footnote

Den Aufsatz begleitet ein interaktives Datensupplement, mit dem sich die OA-Anteile auf Ebene der Einrichtung vergleichen lassen. https://subugoe.github.io/oauni/articles/supplement.html. Die Arbeit entstand in Zusammenarbeit der BMBF-Projekte OAUNI und OASE der Förderlinie "Quantitative Wissenschaftsforschung". https://www.wihoforschung.de/de/quantitative-wissenschaftsforschung-1573.php.

Type

a

0.015620945 = product of:
  0.023431417 = sum of:
    0.008128175 = weight(_text_:a in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008128175 = score(doc=2646,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

Type

a

0.015016008 = product of:
  0.022524012 = sum of:
    0.010281418 = weight(_text_:a in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010281418 = score(doc=3608,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.012242594 = product of:
      0.024485188 = sum of:
        0.024485188 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024485188 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

Type

a

0.013330698 = product of:
  0.019996047 = sum of:
    0.004692804 = weight(_text_:a in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004692804 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.

Type

a

0.013330698 = product of:
  0.019996047 = sum of:
    0.004692804 = weight(_text_:a in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004692804 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.013330698 = product of:
  0.019996047 = sum of:
    0.004692804 = weight(_text_:a in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004692804 = score(doc=4410,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.0117012635 = product of:
  0.017551895 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=4051,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.012242594 = product of:
      0.024485188 = sum of:
        0.024485188 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024485188 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.011227056 = product of:
  0.016840585 = sum of:
    0.0045979903 = weight(_text_:a in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045979903 = score(doc=4631,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.012242594 = product of:
      0.024485188 = sum of:
        0.024485188 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024485188 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.005364322 = product of:
  0.016092965 = sum of:
    0.016092965 = weight(_text_:a in 6380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092965 = score(doc=6380,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 6380, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6380)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.00494665 = product of:
  0.014839949 = sum of:
    0.014839949 = weight(_text_:a in 7054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014839949 = score(doc=7054,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.28486365 = fieldWeight in 7054, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7054)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Many people still believe that publishing a CD-ROM is difficult, time consuming and costly; and therefore only justifiable for large organizations producing mass marketplace publications. Demonstrates how easily organizations can justify the modest investment required to obtain a complete system for in house CD-ROM creation, prototyping and low volume production

Type

a

0.004682364 = product of:
  0.014047092 = sum of:
    0.014047092 = weight(_text_:a in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014047092 = score(doc=1107,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.26964417 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents a model for an electronic book (hyper-book). Hyper-books are electronic books defined on the basis of the paper book metaphor. Gives a formal definition of the hyper-book model as a dynamic system. The model was implemented in a working system, and evaluated with a group of users. The evaluation has confirmed that the adoption of the book metaphor is very effective, as it guarantees ease of using and understanding the system

Type

a

0.0045979903 = product of:
  0.01379397 = sum of:
    0.01379397 = weight(_text_:a in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01379397 = score(doc=975,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A variety of peer reviewed electronic scholarly periodicals are becoming available on the Internet. List a selection of electronic periodicals so available and the advantages of this mode of publishing

Type

a

0.0045979903 = product of:
  0.01379397 = sum of:
    0.01379397 = weight(_text_:a in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01379397 = score(doc=4479,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a