Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0109560955 = product of:
  0.021912191 = sum of:
    0.021912191 = product of:
      0.13147314 = sum of:
        0.13147314 = weight(_text_:authors in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13147314 = score(doc=805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.70515555 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A publishing giant goes after the authors of its journals' papers

0.009408745 = product of:
  0.01881749 = sum of:
    0.01881749 = product of:
      0.03763498 = sum of:
        0.03763498 = weight(_text_:c in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03763498 = score(doc=3371,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14107318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.005541091 = product of:
  0.011082182 = sum of:
    0.011082182 = product of:
      0.022164363 = sum of:
        0.022164363 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022164363 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14321722 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0046954695 = product of:
  0.009390939 = sum of:
    0.009390939 = product of:
      0.056345634 = sum of:
        0.056345634 = weight(_text_:authors in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056345634 = score(doc=4333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Whether to get a promotion or merely a foot in the door, academics have long known that they must publish papers, typically the more the better. Tallying scholarly publications to evaluate their authors has been common since the invention of scientific journals in the 17th century. So, too, has the practice of journal editors asking independent, usually anonymous, experts to scrutinise manuscripts and reject those deemed flawed-a quality-control process now known as peer review. Of late, however, this habit of according importance to papers labelled as "peer reviewed" has become something of a gamble. A rising number of journals that claim to review submissions in this way do not bother to do so. Not coincidentally, this seems to be leading some academics to inflate their publication lists with papers that might not pass such scrutiny."

0.003130313 = product of:
  0.006260626 = sum of:
    0.006260626 = product of:
      0.037563756 = sum of:
        0.037563756 = weight(_text_:authors in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037563756 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0023477348 = product of:
  0.0046954695 = sum of:
    0.0046954695 = product of:
      0.028172817 = sum of:
        0.028172817 = weight(_text_:authors in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028172817 = score(doc=1222,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1864456 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040897828 = queryNorm
            0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

CrossRef, the only full-blown application of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System to date, is now a little over a year old. What started as a cooperative effort among publishers and technologists to prototype DOI-based linking of citations in e-journals evolved into an independent, non-profit enterprise in early 2000. We have made considerable headway during our first year, but there is still much to be done. When CrossRef went live with its collaborative linking service last June, it had enabled reference links in roughly 1,100 journals from a member base of 33 publishers, using a functional prototype system. The DOI-X prototype was described in an article published in D-Lib Magazine in February of 2000. On the occasion of CrossRef's first birthday as a live service, this article provides a non-technical overview of our progress to date and the major hurdles ahead. The electronic medium enriches the research literature arena for all players -- researchers, librarians, and publishers -- in numerous ways. Information has been made easier to discover, to share, and to sell. To take a simple example, the aggregation of book metadata by electronic booksellers was a huge boon to scholars seeking out obscure backlist titles, or discovering books they would never otherwise have known to exist. It was equally a boon for the publishers of those books, who saw an unprecedented surge in sales of backlist titles with the advent of centralized electronic bookselling. In the serials sphere, even in spite of price increases and the turmoil surrounding site licenses for some prime electronic content, libraries overall are now able to offer more content to more of their patrons. Yet undoubtedly, the key enrichment for academics and others navigating a scholarly corpus is linking, and in particular the linking that takes the reader out of one document and into another in the matter of a click or two. Since references are how authors make explicit the links between their work and precedent scholarship, what could be more fundamental to the reader than making those links immediately actionable? That said, automated linking is only really useful from a research perspective if it works across publications and across publishers. Not only do academics think about their own writings and those of their colleagues in terms of "author, title, rough date" -- the name of the journal itself is usually not high on the list of crucial identifying features -- but they are oblivious as to the identity of the publishers of all but their very favorite books and journals.