Search (53 results, page 1 of 3)

0.01856079 = product of:
  0.06496276 = sum of:
    0.016068742 = weight(_text_:wide in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016068742 = score(doc=298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.122383565 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
    0.008717576 = weight(_text_:web in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008717576 = score(doc=298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
    0.03660921 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03660921 = score(doc=298,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2612416 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
    0.0035672332 = weight(_text_:information in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035672332 = score(doc=298,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.068573356 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

An argument for extending the circulation of knowledge with new publishing technologies considers scholarly, economic, philosophical, and practical issues. Questions about access to scholarship go back farther than recent debates over subscription prices, rights, and electronic archives suggest. The great libraries of the past - from the fabled collection at Alexandria to the early public libraries of nineteenth-century America - stood as arguments for increasing access. In The Access Principle, John Willinsky describes the latest chapter in this ongoing story - online open access publishing by scholarly journals - and makes a case for open access as a public good. A commitment to scholarly work, writes Willinsky, carries with it a responsibility to circulate that work as widely as possible: this is the access principle. In the digital age, that responsibility includes exploring new publishing technologies and economic models to improve access to scholarly work. Wide circulation adds value to published work; it is a significant aspect of its claim to be knowledge. The right to know and the right to be known are inextricably mixed. Open access, argues Willinsky, can benefit both a researcher-author working the best-equipped lab at a leading research university and a teacher struggling to find resources in an impoverished high school. Willinsky describes different types of access - the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, grants open access to issues six months after initial publication, and First Monday forgoes a print edition and makes its contents immediately accessible at no cost. He discusses the contradictions of copyright law, the reading of research, and the economic viability of open access. He also considers broader themes of public access to knowledge, human rights issues, lessons from publishing history, and "epistemological vanities." The debate over open access, writes Willinsky, raises crucial questions about the place of scholarly work in a larger world - and about the future of knowledge.

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.9, S.1386 (L.A. Ennis): "Written by John Willinsky. Pacific Press Professor of Literacy and Technology at the University of British Columbia and Open Journals Systems Software des eloper. the eighth hook in the Digital Libraries and Electronic Publishing series (edited by William Y. Arms) provides a compelling and convincing argument in favor of open access. At the core of this work is Willinsky's "access principle." a commitment that "research carries with it a responsibility to extend circulation of such work as far as possible and ideally to all who are interested in it and all who might profit from it" (p.xii). One by one Willinsky tackles the obstacles. both real and perceived, to open access. succeeding in his goal to "inform and inspire a larger debate over the political and moral economy of knowledge" (p.xiv). The author does note the irony of publishing a hook while advocating for open access, but points out that he does so to reach a larger audience. Willinsky also points out that most of the chapters' earlier versions can be found in open-access journals and on his Web site (http://www.11ed.educubc.ca/faculty/willinsky.html). The Access Principle is organized topically into thirteen chapters covering a broad range of practical and theoretical issues. Taken together. these chapters provide the reader with an excellent introduction to the open-access debate as well as all the potential benefits and possible impacts of the open-access movement. The author also includes six appendices. with information on metadata and indexing. os er twenty pages of references, and an index. ... All of Willinsky's arguments arc convincing and heartfelt. It is apparent throughout the hook that the author deeply believes in the principles behind open access. and his passion and conviction come through in the work. making the hook a thought-provoking and very interesting read. While he offers numerous examples to illustrate his points throughout the work. he does not. however. offer solutions or state that he has all the answers. In that, he succeeds in his goal to craft a hook that "informs and inspires. As a result, The Access Principle is an important read for information professionals, researchers, and academics of all kinds, whether or not the reader agrees with Willinsky."

RSWK

Wissenschaft / Zugriff / Elektronische Publikation
Forschung / Zugriff / Elektronische Publikation

Subject

Wissenschaft / Zugriff / Elektronische Publikation
Forschung / Zugriff / Elektronische Publikation

0.016996333 = product of:
  0.11897433 = sum of:
    0.07712996 = weight(_text_:wide in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07712996 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5874411 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
    0.041844364 = weight(_text_:web in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041844364 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

0.01060103 = product of:
  0.04947147 = sum of:
    0.025709987 = weight(_text_:wide in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025709987 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
    0.019725623 = weight(_text_:web in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019725623 = score(doc=4997,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to study current policies and practices of scholarly journals on evaluating manuscripts for publication that had been previously published electronically. Various electronic forms were considered: a manuscript having been e-mailed to members of a listserv, attached to a personal or institutional home page, stored in an electronic preprint collection, or published in an electronic proceedings or electronic journal. Factors that might affect the consideration of such manuscripts were also examined, including characteristics of the journal, the previously published work, and the submitted manuscript. A sample of 202 scholarly journals in the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities was selected for study. A questionnaire and cover letters were sent to the journal editors in the summer and fall of 1997, with an overall return rate of 57.4%. Results are reported for all journals, with comparisons being made between journals edited in the Unites States and outside the Unites States, by journal impact factor, and by discipline. The findings suggest that editorial policies regarding prior electronic publication are in an early stage of development. Most journal editors do not have a formal policy regarding the evaluation of work previously published in electronic form, nor are they currently evaluating such a policy. Editors disagreed widely on the importance of the various factors that might affect their decision to consider a work previously published electronically. The form or type of prior electronic publication was an important variable. Although some editors currently have a fairly rigid and negative posture towards work previously published electronically, most are willing to consider certain forms of such work for publication in their journals. Probably the most significant results of the study were the many differences in practices among scholarly disciplines. The findings of this study reveal how the Internet and the World Wide Web are currently affecting manuscript consideration policies of scholarly journals at this early stage of Web and Internet publishing

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.10, S.940-948

0.0072389394 = product of:
  0.050672572 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=5495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5495, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5495)
    0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 5495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012107591 = score(doc=5495,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5495, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5495)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.0070486804 = product of:
  0.049340762 = sum of:
    0.042278 = weight(_text_:web in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042278 = score(doc=1065,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This article reveals different patterns of scholarly communication in the XML research field on the Web and in print journals in terms of author visibility, and challenges the common practice of exclusively using the ISI's databases to obtain citation counts as scientific performance indicators. Results from this study demonstrate both the importance and the feasibility of the use of multiple citation data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication, and provide evidence for a developing "two tier" scholarly communication system.

Source

Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1403-1418

0.006374111 = product of:
  0.044618774 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 3558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=3558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 3558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3558)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 3558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=3558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3558)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Surveys of the members of the American Astronomical Society identify how astronomers use journals and what features and formats they prefer. While every work field is distinct, the patterns of use by astronomers may provide a glimpse of what to expect of journal patterns and use by other scientists. Astronomers, like other scientists, continue to invest a large amount of their time in reading articles and place a high level of importance an journal articles. They use a wide variety of formats and means to get access to materials that are essential to their work in teaching, service, and research. They select access means that are convenient-whether those means be print, electronic, or both. The availability of a mature electronic journals system from their primary professional society has surely influenced their early adoption of e-journals.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.786-802

0.005950577 = product of:
  0.04165404 = sum of:
    0.03660921 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 2409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03660921 = score(doc=2409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2612416 = fieldWeight in 2409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2409)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 2409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=2409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2409)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Gegenwärtig werden große Mengen ursprünglich analog vorliegender Publikationen digitalisiert, um den Benutzerzugriff über Datennetze zu vereinfachen. Gleichzeitig wachsen Menge und Heterogenität der originär in digitaler Form erscheinenden Veröffentlichungen weiter an. Mehr und mehr Zeitschriften, Hochschulschriften, Lehr- und Lernmaterialien, aber auch Bücher, werden online publiziert. Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten stehen teilweise überhaupt nicht mehr in gedruckter Form, sondern nur noch elektronisch zur Verfügung. Viele Autoren und wissenschaftliche Institutionen übernehmen mittlerweile selbst die Veröffentlichung und Verbreitung ihrer Publikationen. Und auch die Erscheinungsformen von Publikationen verändern sich und lösen sich teilweise sogar auf. Für alle am Publikationsprozess beteiligten Institutionen ergeben sich durch diese Veränderungen von Publikationsstrukturen und -formen neue Herausforderungen. So gewinnt für die Bibliotheken die Sammlung, Erschließung und Bereitstellung von Netzpublikationen sowie deren Langzeitarchivierung eine zunehmend stärkere Bedeutung. Als Netzpublikationen gelten alle Darstellungen in Schrift, Bild und Ton, die in öffentlichen Netzen zugänglich gemacht werden. Elektronische Zeitschriften, E-Books, Hochschulprüfungsarbeiten, Forschungsberichte, Kongressschriften und Lehrmaterialien gehören genauso dazu wie Digitalisate alter Drucke, Musikdateien oder Webseiten. Für die Information und Kommunikation in Wissenschaft und Forschung haben Netzpublikationen längst eine herausragende Bedeutung. Damit digitale Objekte zitierfähig sind, müssen sie jedoch auf Dauer - inhaltlich unverändert! - als Referenzen zur Verfügung stehen und trotz aller voraussichtlichen technischen und organisatorischen Veränderungen auch in der Zukunft noch zuverlässig auffindbar sein.

0.0056159133 = product of:
  0.03931139 = sum of:
    0.027896244 = weight(_text_:web in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027896244 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
    0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011415146 = score(doc=1746,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

An overview of the development of electronic resources over the past three decades is provided, discussing key features, disadvantages, and benefits of traditional online databases and CD-ROM and Web-based resources. This analysis of gains and losses as information resources have shifted to the Internet provides a basis for identifying key issues in the decision to shift collections and resources toward purely digital formats. Ownership of content, licensing terms, and the proliferation of user interfaces are especially important and still unresolved concerns.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1160-1164

0.005457378 = product of:
  0.038201645 = sum of:
    0.03416578 = weight(_text_:web in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03416578 = score(doc=1063,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=1063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.0049139243 = product of:
  0.034397468 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 688, 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=688)
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Evaluates, through deep log analysis, the impact of "Big Deal" agreements on the online searching behaviour of users of the Emerald digital library Web site, which provides access to more than 150 journals in the fields of business and information science. The purpose of the evaluation was to map the online information seeking behaviour of the digital library user and to see whether those signed-up to a Big Deal arrangement behaved any differently from the others. In general they did. The real surprise proved to be the strong consumer traits of the library's users. Research reported here refers to the first stage of a three-stage research project.

0.004743375 = product of:
  0.033203624 = sum of:
    0.012233062 = weight(_text_:information in 1275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012233062 = score(doc=1275,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 1275, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1275)
    0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020970564 = score(doc=1275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1275, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1275)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The papers presented at the 2002 Tri-Society Symposium an Chemical Information highlight questions we should consider as we develop new paradigms for information storage and retrieval systems. These new knowledge management systems will require novel approaches for data discovery, collection development, and the changing role of the librarian. This introductory essay discusses new and challenging integrated tools for data manipulation, the confusing and embryonic differential pricing and package deals for journal materials, and the changing role of the librarian in this rapidly transforming industry.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1138-1104

0.0044555645 = product of:
  0.0623779 = sum of:
    0.0623779 = weight(_text_:web in 5) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0623779 = score(doc=5,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.6450079 = fieldWeight in 5, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This book introduces the most important Web technologies and shows how they can be used on today's Websites. From client development using HTML and Javascript, through to full server-side applications written in ASP and Perl, the complete web system is shown. Concentrating on immediately useful code, rather than theory, this is a how-to book Im programmers who need quick answers

LCSH

Web site development

Subject

Web site development

0.0042119347 = product of:
  0.029483542 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 1810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=1810,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1810, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1810)
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 1810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=1810,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1810, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1810)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The Internet has fostered a faster, more interactive and effective model of scholarly publishing. However, as the quantity of information available is constantly increasing, its quality is threatened, since the traditional quality control mechanism of peer review is often not used (e.g., in online repositories of preprints, and by people publishing whatever they want an their Web pages). This paper describes a new kind of electronic scholarly journal, in which the standard submission-reviewpublication process is replaced by a more sophisticated approach, based an judgments expressed by the readers: in this way, each reader is, potentially, a peer reviewer. New ingredients, not found in similar approaches, are that each reader's judgment is weighted an the basis of the reader's skills as a reviewer, and that readers are encouraged to express correct judgments by a feedback mechanism that estimates their own quality. The new electronic scholarly journal is described in both intuitive and formal ways. Its effectiveness is tested by several laboratory experiments that simulate what might happen if the system were deployed and used.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.11, S.989-1005

0.0039381995 = product of:
  0.055134792 = sum of:
    0.055134792 = weight(_text_:web in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055134792 = score(doc=5071,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The academic impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is a prominent topic of debate in the library and publishing communities. Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations in assessing the academic impact of journals. In our study, we compare Web citations to articles in an OA journal, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), and a traditional access journal, New Media & Society (NMS), in the communication discipline. Web citation counts for JCMC are significantly higher than those for NMS. Furthermore, JCMC receives significantly higher Web citations from the formal scholarly publications posted on the Web than NMS does. The types of Web citations for journal articles were also examined. In the Web context, the impact of a journal can be assessed using more than one type of source: citations from scholarly articles, teaching materials and non-authoritative documents. The OA journal has higher percentages of citations from the third type, which suggests that, in addition to the research community, the impact advantage of open access is also detectable among ordinary users participating in Web-based academic communication. Moreover, our study also proves that the OA journal has impact advantage in developing countries. Compared with NMS, JCMC has more Web citations from developing countries.

0.003932116 = product of:
  0.02752481 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=990,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 990, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=990)
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=990,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 990, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=990)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The article employs deep log analysis (DLA) techniques, a more sophisticated form of transaction log analysis, to demonstrate what usage data can disclose about information seeking behaviour of virtual scholars - academics, and researchers. DLA works with the raw server log data, not the processed, pre-defined and selective data provided by journal publishers. It can generate types of analysis that are not generally available via proprietary web logging software because the software filters out relevant data and makes unhelpful assumptions about the meaning of the data. DLA also enables usage data to be associated with search/navigational and/or user demographic data, hence the name 'deep'. In this connection the usage of two digital journal libraries, those of EmeraldInsight, and Blackwell Synergy are investigated. The information seeking behaviour of nearly three million users is analyzed in respect to the extent to which they penetrate the site, the number of visits made, as well as the type of items and content they view. The users are broken down by occupation, place of work, type of subscriber ("Big Deal", non-subscriber, etc.), geographical location, type of university (old and new), referrer link used, and number of items viewed in a session.

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.5, S.1345-1365

0.0038537113 = product of:
  0.026975978 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 4802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=4802,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4802, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4802)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 4802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=4802,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4802, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4802)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Describes an approach to the processing and presentation of online full-text journals that utilizes several evolving information technologies, including extensible markup language (XML) and extensible stylesheet language transformations (XSLT). Discusses major issues and trade-offs associated with these technologies, and also specific lessons learned from our use of these technologies in the Illinois Testbed of full-text journal articles. Focuses especially on issues associated with the representation of documents in XML, techniques to create and normalize metadata describing XML document instances, XSLT features employed in the Illinois Testbed, and trade-offs of different XSLT implementation options. Pays special attention to techniques for transforming between XML and HTML formats for rendering in today's commercial Web browsers.

0.0038537113 = product of:
  0.026975978 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=35,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=35,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Increased reliance on electronic resources requires examination of the roles of librarians in several key ways. This paper addresses the need for further research into three important areas of electronic publishing. How is the change to digital information sources affecting the scholarly work of college and university students? Previous research shows that students rely on Web and online resources and ask for less help from librarians. We do not know, however, how these changes will affect the learning and scholarly work of college and university students. Research is also needed to determine how the differences between separate article and full journal databases affect the way research is done. What are the implications for scholarship of decisions being made about what publishers publish and what librarians purchase? Finally, are librarians--as intermediaries to the search process--still necessary in a digital age? Online systems are designed to be used independently but that may not always yield the best results.

0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1874)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=1874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1874)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Reader awareness of article corrections can be of critical importance in the physical and biomedical sciences. Comparison of errata and corrigenda in online versions of high-impact physical sciences journals across titles and publishers yielded surprising variability. Of 43 online journals surveyed, 17 had no links between original articles and later corrections. When present, hyperlinks between articles and errata showed patterns in presentation style, but lacked consistency. Variability in the presentation, linking, and availability of online errata indicates that practices are not evenly developed across the field. Comparison of finding tools showed excellent coverage of errata by Science Citation Index, lack of indexing in INSPEC, and lack of retrieval with SciFinder Scholar. The development of standards for the linking of original articles to errata is recommended.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1153-1159

0.003211426 = product of:
  0.022479981 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.2047-2054

0.0030809313 = product of:
  0.021566518 = sum of:
    0.013536699 = weight(_text_:information in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013536699 = score(doc=1871,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
    0.008029819 = product of:
      0.024089456 = sum of:
        0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024089456 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1136-1137