Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.056737162 = sum of:
  0.0149503 = product of:
    0.0598012 = sum of:
      0.0598012 = weight(_text_:authors in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0598012 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.04178686 = product of:
    0.08357372 = sum of:
      0.08357372 = weight(_text_:w in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08357372 = score(doc=1634,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.42103854 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Today's publishing infrastructure is rapidly changing. As electronic journals, digital libraries, collaboratories, logic servers, and other knowledge infrastructures emerge an the internet, the key aspects of this transformation need to be identified. Knowledge is becoming increasingly dynamic and integrated. Instead of writing self-contained articles, authors are turning to the new practice of embedding their findings into dynamic networks of knowledge. Here, the author details the implications that this transformation is having an the creation, dissemination and organization of academic knowledge. The author Shows that many established publishing principles need to be given up in order to facilitate this transformation. The text provides valuable insights for knowledge managers, designers of internet-based knowledge infrastructures, and professionals in the publishing industry. Researchers will find the scenarios and implications for research processes stimulating and thought-provoking.

Classification

PVK (W)
ALR (W)

GHBS

PVK (W)
ALR (W)

0.03911165 = sum of:
  0.01794036 = product of:
    0.07176144 = sum of:
      0.07176144 = weight(_text_:authors in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07176144 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021171294 = product of:
    0.04234259 = sum of:
      0.04234259 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04234259 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = 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)

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

0.01794036 = product of:
  0.03588072 = sum of:
    0.03588072 = product of:
      0.14352287 = sum of:
        0.14352287 = weight(_text_:authors in 1031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14352287 = score(doc=1031,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 1031, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1031)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01268575 = product of:
  0.0253715 = sum of:
    0.0253715 = product of:
      0.101486 = sum of:
        0.101486 = weight(_text_:authors in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.101486 = score(doc=753,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to summarize the developments taking place in the scholarly communication system by reviewing the published literature on journal subscriptions, electronic publishing, electronic journals, Internet and changing information needs of researchers. It examines the role of different players in the scholarly communication process such as authors, commercial publishers, libraries, universities, and learned societies, their problems and efforts in meeting the new challenges brought in by the Internet. The study also explores the need for adopting electronic media for scholarly communication in place of printed journals considering the advantages such as accessibility, speed, cost and acceptance by the academic and research community. At the end it provides general guidance to authors, publishers and libraries to develop mechanisms for mutual benefit and foster the scholarly communication process in the new environment.

0.011960239 = product of:
  0.023920478 = sum of:
    0.023920478 = product of:
      0.09568191 = sum of:
        0.09568191 = weight(_text_:authors in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09568191 = score(doc=1063,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Articles freely available online are more highly cited. For greater impact and faster scientific progress, authors and publishers should aim to make research easy to access.

Content

The volume of scientific literature typically far exceeds the ability of scientists to identify and utilize all relevant information in their research. Improvements to the accessibility of scientific literature, allowing scientists to locate more relevant research within a given time, have the potential to dramatically improve communication and progress in science. With the web, scientists now have very convenient access to an increasing amount of literature that previously required trips to the library, inter-library loan delays, or substantial effort in locating the source. Evidence shows that usage increases when access is more convenient, and maximizing the usage of the scientific record benefits all of society. Although availability varies greatly by discipline, over a million research articles are freely available on the web. Some journals and conferences provide free access online, others allow authors to post articles on the web, and others allow authors to purchase the right to post their articles on the web. In this article we investigate the impact of free online availability by analyzing citation rates. We do not discuss methods of creating free online availability, such as time-delayed release or publication/membership/conference charges. Online availability of an article may not be expected to greatly improve access and impact by itself. For example, efficient means of locating articles via web search engines or specialized search services is required, and a substantial percentage of the literature needs to be indexed by these search services before it is worthwhile for many scientists to use them. Computer science is a forerunner in web availability -- a substantial percentage of the literature is online and available through search engines such as Google (google.com), or specialized services such as ResearchIndex (researchindex.org). Even so, the greatest impact of the online availability of computer science literature is likely yet to come, because comprehensive search services and more powerful search methods have only become available recently. We analyzed 119,924 conference articles in computer science and related disciplines, obtained from DBLP (dblp.uni-trier.de). In computer science, conference articles are typically formal publications and are often more prestigious than journal articles, with acceptance rates at some conferences below 10%. Citation counts and online availability were estimated using ResearchIndex. The analysis excludes self-citations, where a citation is considered to be a self-citation if one or more of the citing and cited authors match.

0.010585647 = product of:
  0.021171294 = sum of:
    0.021171294 = product of:
      0.04234259 = sum of:
        0.04234259 = weight(_text_:22 in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04234259 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

19.10.2003 17:17:22

0.010585647 = product of:
  0.021171294 = sum of:
    0.021171294 = product of:
      0.04234259 = sum of:
        0.04234259 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04234259 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:59:25

0.00897018 = product of:
  0.01794036 = sum of:
    0.01794036 = product of:
      0.07176144 = sum of:
        0.07176144 = weight(_text_:authors in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07176144 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5495, 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=5495)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Electronic publishing brings about some substantial shifts in technological as well as socio-political patterns that were in place during the era of paper publications. The tension between producer and consumer side of the information cycle is the most significant feature of this change. Authors and publishers try to maximise their revenues from the marketing of information and backed by the possibilities of technology they force major changes in legislation governing the area of (public) information access. In this environment, the society's interest in a wide-spread accessibility of electronic data must be balanced by substantial financial investments - a solution that only the rich economies of the world can feel comfortable with

0.00747515 = product of:
  0.0149503 = sum of:
    0.0149503 = product of:
      0.0598012 = sum of:
        0.0598012 = weight(_text_:authors in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0598012 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article statistically analyzes how the citation impact of articles deposited in the Condensed Matter section of the preprint server ArXiv (hosted by Cornell University), and subsequently published in a scientific journal, compares to that of articles in the same journal that were not deposited in the archive. Its principal aim is to further illustrate and roughly estimate the effect of two factors, early view and quality bias, on differences in citation impact between these two sets of papers, using citation data from Thomson Scientific's Web of Science. It presents estimates for a number of journals in the field of condensed matter physics. To discriminate between an open access effect and an early view effect, longitudinal citation data were analyzed covering a time period as long as 7 years. Quality bias was measured by calculating ArXiv citation impact differentials at the level of individual authors publishing in a journal, taking into account coauthorship. The analysis provided evidence of a strong quality bias and early view effect. Correcting for these effects, there is in a sample of six condensed matter physics journals studied in detail no sign of a general open access advantage of papers deposited in ArXiv. The study does provide evidence that ArXiv accelerates citation due to the fact that ArXiv makes papers available earlier rather than makes them freely available.

0.00448509 = product of:
  0.00897018 = sum of:
    0.00897018 = product of:
      0.03588072 = sum of:
        0.03588072 = weight(_text_:authors in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03588072 = score(doc=1222,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  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.