Search (55 results, page 2 of 3)

0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=529,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Increasingly, e-books are becoming alternatives to print books in academic libraries, thus providing opportunities to assess how well the use of e-books meets the requirements of academics. This study uses the task-technology fit (TTF) model to explore the interrelationships of e-books, the affordances offered by smart readers, the information needs of academics, and the "fit" of technology to tasks as well as performance. We propose that the adoption of e-books will be dependent on how academics perceive the fit of this new medium to the tasks they undertake as well as what added-value functionality is delivered by the information technology that delivers the content. The study used content analysis and an online survey, administered to the faculty in Medicine, Science and Engineering at the University of New South Wales, to identify the attributes of a TTF construct of e-books in academic settings. Using exploratory factor analysis, preliminary findings confirmed annotation, navigation, and output as the core dimensions of the TTF construct. The results of confirmatory factor analysis using partial least squares path modeling supported the overall TTF model in reflecting significant positive impact of task, technology, and individual characteristics on TTF for e-books in academic settings; it also confirmed significant positive impact of TTF on individuals' performance and use, and impact of using e-books on individual performance. Our research makes two contributions: the development of an e-book TTF construct and the testing of that construct in a model validating the efficacy of the TTF framework in measuring perceived fit of e-books to academic tasks.

0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=754,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Open access (OA) journals distribute their content at no charge and use other means of funding the publication process. Publication fees or article-processing charges (APC)s have become the predominant means for funding professional OA publishing. We surveyed 1,038 authors who recently published articles in 74 OA journals that charge APCs stratified into seven discipline categories. Authors were asked about the source of funding for the APC, factors influencing their choice of a journal and past history publishing in OA and subscription journals. Additional information about the journal and the authors' country were obtained from the journal website. A total of 429 (41%) authors from 69 journals completed the survey. There were large differences in the source of funding among disciplines. Journals with impact factors charged higher APCs as did journals from disciplines where grant funding is plentiful. Fit, quality, and speed of publication were the most important factors in the authors' choice of a journal. OA was less important but a significant factor for many authors in their choice of a journal to publish. These findings are consistent with other research on OA publishing and suggest that OA publishing funded through APCs is likely to continue to grow.

Footnote

Vgl. Erratum in: JASIST 64(2013) no.5, S.1089.

0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=3597,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.

0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 3797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=3797,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 3797, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3797)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper reports analysis of data from higher education institutions in the UK on their experience of the open-access (OA) publishing market working within a policy environment favoring "Gold" OA (OA publishing in journals). It models the "total cost of publication"-comprising costs of journal subscriptions, OA article-processing charges (APCs), and new administrative costs-for a sample of 24 institutions. APCs are shown to constitute 12% of the "total cost of publication," APC administration, 1%, and subscriptions, 87% (for a sample of seven publishers). APC expenditure in institutions rose between 2012 and 2014 at the same time as rising subscription costs. There was disproportionately high take up of Gold options for Health and Life Sciences articles. APC prices paid varied widely, with a mean APC of £1,586 in 2014. "Hybrid" options (subscription journals also offering OA for individual articles on payment of an APC) were considerably more expensive than fully OA titles, but the data indicate a correlation between APC price and journal quality (as reflected in the citation rates of journals). The policy implications of these developments are explored, particularly in relation to hybrid OA and potential of offsetting subscription and APC costs.

0.001821651 = product of:
  0.010929906 = sum of:
    0.010929906 = weight(_text_:in in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010929906 = score(doc=3954,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to bring together information on whether any evidence exists of a commercial conflict between the creation of digital archives at research institutions and by key subject centres of excellence, and the business of journal publishing. Design/methodology/approach - Relevant publications, including articles published in refereed books and journals, as well as informal commentaries on listservs, blogs and wikis, were analysed to determine whether there is any evidence of a commercial relationship. Findings - Most of the published comments are highly subjective and anecdotal - there is a significant emotional overtone to many of the views expressed. There is precious little hard evidence currently available to support or debunk the idea that a commercial conflict exists between repositories and journal subscriptions. The situation is made more difficult by the many technological, sociological and administrative changes that are taking place in parallel to the establishment of repositories. Practical implications - Separating the key drivers and their impact is a major strategic challenge facing all stakeholders in the scholarly communication industry in future. Research limitations/implications - This is an important area which requires close monitoring - the possible threat that the established journal publishing system could be eroded away by a new "free" scholarly information system needs attention. One significant study in this area is being undertaken by the PEER group, funded by the European Commission with hard evidence being collected by UCL's CIBER research group. The results from this impartial investigation will be very welcome. Originality/value - The paper shows that relationship between repositories and journal subscriptions is vague.

0.001821651 = product of:
  0.010929906 = sum of:
    0.010929906 = weight(_text_:in in 3016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010929906 = score(doc=3016,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 3016, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3016)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

As open-access (OA) publishing funded by article-processing charges (APCs) becomes more widely accepted, academic institutions need to be aware of the "total cost of publication" (TCP), comprising subscription costs plus APCs and additional administration costs. This study analyzes data from 23 UK institutions covering the period 2007-2014 modeling the TCP. It shows a clear rise in centrally managed APC payments from 2012 onward, with payments projected to increase further. As well as evidencing the growing availability and acceptance of OA publishing, these trends reflect particular UK policy developments and funding arrangements intended to accelerate the move toward OA publishing ("Gold" OA). Although the mean value of APCs has been relatively stable, there was considerable variation in APC prices paid by institutions since 2007. In particular, "hybrid" subscription/OA journals were consistently more expensive than fully OA journals. Most APCs were paid to large "traditional" commercial publishers who also received considerable subscription income. New administrative costs reported by institutions varied considerably. The total cost of publication modeling shows that APCs are now a significant part of the TCP for academic institutions, in 2013 already constituting an average of 10% of the TCP (excluding administrative costs).

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 3429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=3429,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 3429, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3429)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This research applies statistical time series analysis to examine the changing pattern of scholars' attitudes toward open-access (OA) journal publishing from the early 1990s. By synthesizing survey results in existing studies, this research focuses on representative aspects of the attitudes and behaviors recorded through the years. It finds that although an increase in the publishing and awareness rates of scholars with regard to OA journals has been observed, scholars have been consistently concerned with the low prestige of such journals and their lack of peer review, which is not the case in practice. It is hoped that the findings will provide useful information for the improvement of OA advocacy.

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=366,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 366, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=366)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Since 2004, mainstream scholarly publishers have been offering authors publishing in their subscription journals the option to free their individual articles from access barriers against a payment (hybrid OA). This has been marketed as a possible gradual transition path between subscription and open access to the scholarly journal literature, and the publishers have pledged to decrease their subscription prices in proportion to the uptake of the hybrid option. The number of hybrid journals has doubled in the past couple of years and is now over 4,300; the number of such articles was around 12,000 in 2011. On average only 1-2% of eligible authors utilize the OA option, due mainly to the generally high price level of typically 3,000 USD. There are, however, a few publishers and individual journals with a much higher uptake. This article takes a closer look at the development of hybrid OA and discusses, from an author-centric viewpoint, the possible reasons for the lack of success of this business model.

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 1553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=1553,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1553, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1553)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Electronic documents produced in business processes are valuable information resources for organizations. In many cases they have to be accessible long after the life of the business processes or information systems in connection with which they were created. To improve the management and preservation of documents, organizations are deploying Extensible Markup Language (XML) as a standardized format for documents. The goal of this paper is to increase understanding of XML document management and provide a framework to enable the analysis and description of the management of XML documents throughout their life. We followed the design science approach. We introduce a document life cycle model consisting of five phases. For each of the phases we describe the typical activities related to the management of XML documents. Furthermore, we also identify the typical actors, systems, and types of content items associated with the activities of the phases. We demonstrate the use of the model in two case studies: one concerning the State Budget Proposal of the Finnish government and the other concerning a faculty council meeting agenda at a university.

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 3652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=3652,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3652, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3652)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Internet has triggered transformational change in the dissemination of science in the form of a global transition to open access (OA) publishing. Heavy investment favoring Gold over Green OA has been associated with increased total publication costs, inequality of opportunity to publish, and concerns about integrity in science reporting. Notwithstanding current fluidity because of ongoing competition for market share between supporters of the major alternative publishing strategies, emerging trends indicate the need for material and human resources to be redirected away from Gold and toward Green OA. Doing so will reduce total publication costs, increase equality of access for authors and readers, and remove the financial incentives that have encouraged poor and corrupt publishing practices.

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 3838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=3838,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3838, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3838)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Hybrid open access refers to articles freely accessible via the Internet but which originate from an academic journal that provides most of its content via subscription. The effect of hybrid open access on citation counts and author behavior in the field of chemistry is something that has not been widely studied. We compared 814 open access articles and 27,621 subscription access articles published from 2006 through 2011 in American Chemical Society journals. As expected, the 2 comparison groups are not equal in all respects. Cumulative citation data were analyzed from years 2-5 following an article's publication date. A citation advantage for open access articles was correlated with the journal impact factor (IF) in low and medium IF journals, but not in high IF journals. Open access articles have a 24% higher mean citation rate than their subscription counterparts in low IF journals (confidence limits 8-42%, p = .0022) and similarly, a 26% higher mean citation rate in medium IF journals (confidence limits 14-40%, p < .001). Open access articles in high IF journals had no significant difference compared to subscription access articles (13% lower mean citation rate, confidence limits -27-3%, p = .10). These results are correlative, not causative, and may not be completely due to an open access effect. Authors of the open access articles were also surveyed to determine why they chose a hybrid open access option, paid the required article processing charge, and whether they believed it was money well spent. Authors primarily chose open access because of funding mandates; however, most considered the money well spent because open access increases information access to the scientific community and the general public, and potentially increases citations to their scholarship.

0.0016629322 = product of:
  0.009977593 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=748,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 748, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=748)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article aims to understand the adoption of e-books by academic historians for the purpose of teaching and research. This includes an investigation into their knowledge about and perceived characteristics of this evolving research tool. The study relied on Rogers's model of the innovation-decision process to guide the development of an interview guide. Ten semistructured interviews were conducted with history faculty between October 2010 and December 2011. A grounded theory approach was employed to code and analyze the data. Findings about tradition, cost, teaching innovations, and the historical research process provide the background for designing learning opportunities for the professional development of historians and the academic librarians who work with them. While historians are open to experimenting with e-books, they are also concerned about the loss of serendipity in digital environments, the lack of availability of key resources, and the need for technological transparency. The findings show that Rogers's knowledge and persuasion stages are cyclical in nature, with scholars moving back and forth between these two stages. Participants interviewed were already weighing the five characteristics of the persuasion stage without having much knowledge about e-books. The study findings have implications for our understanding of the diffusion of innovations in academia: both print and digital collections are being used in parallel without one replacing the other.

0.0016629322 = product of:
  0.009977593 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=3548,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific "soundness" and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

0.0016629322 = product of:
  0.009977593 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=3837,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study presents a large-scale analysis of the distribution and presence of Mendeley readership scores over time and across disciplines. We study whether Mendeley readership scores (RS) can identify highly cited publications more effectively than journal citation scores (JCS). Web of Science (WoS) publications with digital object identifiers (DOIs) published during the period 2004-2013 and across five major scientific fields were analyzed. The main result of this study shows that RS are more effective (in terms of precision/recall values) than JCS to identify highly cited publications across all fields of science and publication years. The findings also show that 86.5% of all the publications are covered by Mendeley and have at least one reader. Also, the share of publications with Mendeley RS is increasing from 84% in 2004 to 89% in 2009, and decreasing from 88% in 2010 to 82% in 2013. However, it is noted that publications from 2010 onwards exhibit on average a higher density of readership versus citation scores. This indicates that compared to citation scores, RS are more prevalent for recent publications and hence they could work as an early indicator of research impact. These findings highlight the potential and value of Mendeley as a tool for scientometric purposes and particularly as a relevant tool to identify highly cited publications.

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=3533,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Design of peer-review support systems is shaped by the policies that define and govern the process of peer review. An important component of these are policies that deal with anonymity: The rules that govern the concealment and transparency of information related to identities of the various stakeholders (authors, reviewers, editors, and others) involved in the peer-review process. Anonymity policies have been a subject of debate for several decades within scholarly communities. Because of widespread criticism of traditional peer-review processes, a variety of new peer-review processes have emerged that manage the trade-offs between disclosure and concealment of identities in different ways. Based on an analysis of policies and guidelines for authors and reviewers provided by publication venues, we developed a framework for understanding how disclosure and concealment of identities is managed. We discuss the appropriate role of information technology and computer support for the peer-review process within that framework.

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 4989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=4989,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 4989, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4989)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Open data movement advocates support to public authorities by making available to society the public information they manage. The data released are identified as open government data and the creation of open data portals supports their commitment through open government policies. The worldwide increase of the open data publication is making more necessary the modelling of its impact on society. This research analyses the process of open data publication starting in the internal systems of the organization and reaching the actual reuse of data in reuser's ecosystem surrounding the open data portals. Different reuser's profiles are identified and described within the reuser's ecosystem. Some key elements of the publication process are presented in order to guarantee sustainability of open data initiatives and to further analyse the social and economic impact.

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=486,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 1335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=1335,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 1335, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1335)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

With electronic book (e-book) sales and readership rising, are e-books positioned to replace print books? This study examines the preference for e-books and print books in the contexts of reading purpose, reading situation, and contextual variables such as age, gender, education level, race/ethnicity, income, community type, and Internet use. In addition, this study aims to identify factors that contribute to e-book adoption. Participants were a nationally representative sample of 2,986 people in the United States from the Reading Habits Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project (http://pewinternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2011/December-2011--Reading-Habits.aspx). While the results of this study support the notion that e-books have firmly established a place in people's lives, due to their convenience of access, e-books are not yet positioned to replace print books. Both print books and e-books have unique attributes and serve irreplaceable functions to meet people's reading needs, which may vary by individual demographic, contextual, and situational factors. At this point, the leading significant predictors of e-book adoption are the number of books read, the individual's income, the occurrence and frequency of reading for research topics of interest, and the individual's Internet use, followed by other variables such as race/ethnicity, reading for work/school, age, and education.

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=2707,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Archives are an extremely valuable part of our cultural heritage since they represent the trace of the activities of a physical or juridical person in the course of their business. Despite their importance, the models and technologies that have been developed over the past two decades in the Digital Library (DL) field have not been specifically tailored to archives. This is especially true when it comes to formal and foundational frameworks, as the Streams, Structures, Spaces, Scenarios, Societies (5S) model is. Therefore, we propose an innovative formal model, called NEsted SeTs for Object hieRarchies (NESTOR), for archives, explicitly built around the concepts of context and hierarchy which play a central role in the archival realm. NESTOR is composed of two set-based data models: the Nested Sets Model (NS-M) and the Inverse Nested Sets Model (INS-M) that express the hierarchical relationships between objects through the inclusion property between sets. We formally study the properties of these models and prove their equivalence with the notion of hierarchy entailed by archives. We then use NESTOR to extend the 5S model in order to take into account the specific features of archives and to tailor the notion of digital library accordingly. This offers the possibility of opening up the full wealth of DL methods and technologies to archives. We demonstrate the impact of NESTOR on this problem through three example use cases.

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 3154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=3154,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3154, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3154)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article explores the cultural characteristics of three open access (OA)-friendly disciplines (physics, economics, and clinical medicine) and the ways in which those characteristics influence perceptions, motivations, and behaviors toward green OA. The empirical data are taken from two online surveys of European authors. Taking a domain analytic approach, the analysis draws on Becher and Trowler's (2001) and Whitley's (2000) theories to gain a deeper understanding of why OA repositories (OAR) play a particularly important role in the chosen disciplines. The surveys provided a unique opportunity to compare perceptions, motivations, and behaviors of researchers at the discipline level with the parent metadiscipline. It should be noted that participants were not drawn from a stratified sample of all the different subdisciplines that constitute each discipline, and therefore the generalizability of the findings to the discipline may be limited. The differential role of informal and formal communication in each of the three disciplines has shaped green OA practices. For physicists and economists, preprints are an essential feature of their respective OAR landscapes, whereas for clinical medics final published articles have a central role. In comparing the disciplines with their parent metadisciplines there were some notable similarities/differences, which have methodological implications for studying research cultures.