Search (60 results, page 1 of 3)

0.020622315 = product of:
  0.04124463 = sum of:
    0.04124463 = sum of:
      0.0054831975 = weight(_text_:a in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054831975 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.03576143 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03576143 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07

Type

a

0.016163789 = product of:
  0.032327577 = sum of:
    0.032327577 = sum of:
      0.0067836978 = weight(_text_:a in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0067836978 = score(doc=2646,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.02554388 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02554388 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

Type

a

0.014730224 = product of:
  0.029460449 = sum of:
    0.029460449 = sum of:
      0.0039165695 = weight(_text_:a in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0039165695 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.02554388 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02554388 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Type

a

0.014730224 = product of:
  0.029460449 = sum of:
    0.029460449 = sum of:
      0.0039165695 = weight(_text_:a in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0039165695 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.02554388 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02554388 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.014730224 = product of:
  0.029460449 = sum of:
    0.029460449 = sum of:
      0.0039165695 = weight(_text_:a in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0039165695 = score(doc=4410,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.02554388 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02554388 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.014507939 = product of:
  0.029015878 = sum of:
    0.029015878 = sum of:
      0.008580774 = weight(_text_:a in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008580774 = score(doc=3608,freq=30.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
            5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
              30.0 = termFreq=30.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.020435104 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020435104 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Type

a

0.012433099 = product of:
  0.024866197 = sum of:
    0.024866197 = sum of:
      0.0044310926 = weight(_text_:a in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0044310926 = score(doc=4051,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.020435104 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020435104 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.012136271 = product of:
  0.024272542 = sum of:
    0.024272542 = sum of:
      0.003837439 = weight(_text_:a in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003837439 = score(doc=4631,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.020435104 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020435104 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.0027415988 = product of:
  0.0054831975 = sum of:
    0.0054831975 = product of:
      0.010966395 = sum of:
        0.010966395 = weight(_text_:a in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010966395 = score(doc=805,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Type

a

0.002374294 = product of:
  0.004748588 = sum of:
    0.004748588 = product of:
      0.009497176 = sum of:
        0.009497176 = weight(_text_:a in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009497176 = score(doc=3371,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

After a year of development, the library at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has launched a repository, called the Illinois Data Bank (https://databank.illinois.edu/), to provide Illinois researchers with a free, self-serve publishing platform that centralizes, preserves, and provides persistent and reliable access to Illinois research data. This article presents a holistic view of development by discussing our overarching technical, policy, and interface strategies. By openly presenting our design decisions, the rationales behind those decisions, and associated challenges this paper aims to contribute to the library community's work to develop repository services that meet growing data preservation and sharing needs.

Type

a

0.0023499418 = product of:
  0.0046998835 = sum of:
    0.0046998835 = product of:
      0.009399767 = sum of:
        0.009399767 = weight(_text_:a in 1553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009399767 = score(doc=1553,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1553, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0023499418 = product of:
  0.0046998835 = sum of:
    0.0046998835 = product of:
      0.009399767 = sum of:
        0.009399767 = weight(_text_:a in 3249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009399767 = score(doc=3249,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 3249, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0021981692 = product of:
  0.0043963385 = sum of:
    0.0043963385 = product of:
      0.008792677 = sum of:
        0.008792677 = weight(_text_:a in 366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008792677 = score(doc=366,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 366, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=366)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.002189429 = product of:
  0.004378858 = sum of:
    0.004378858 = product of:
      0.008757716 = sum of:
        0.008757716 = weight(_text_:a in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008757716 = score(doc=3766,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.

Type

a

0.0020770747 = product of:
  0.0041541494 = sum of:
    0.0041541494 = product of:
      0.008308299 = sum of:
        0.008308299 = weight(_text_:a in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008308299 = score(doc=4185,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper explores the usefulness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar (GS) for evaluating open access (OA) policies that demand a deposit in a repository. A case study was designed focusing on 762 financed articles with a project of FIS-2012 of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish national health service's main management body for health research. Its finance is therefore subject to the Spanish Government OA mandate. A search was carried out for full-text OA copies of the 762 articles using the four tools being evaluated and with identification of the repository housing these items. Of the 762 articles concerned, 510 OA copies were found of 353 unique articles (46.3%) in 68 repositories. OA copies were found of 81.9% of the articles in PubMed Central and copies of 49.5% of the articles in an institutional repository (IR). BASE and GS identified 93.5% of the articles and OpenAIRE 86.7%. Recolecta identified just 62.2% of the articles deposited in a Spanish IR. BASE achieved the greatest success, by locating copies deposited in IR, while GS found those deposited in disciplinary repositories. None of the tools identified copies of all the articles, so they need to be used in a complementary way when evaluating OA policies.

Type

a

0.0019582848 = product of:
  0.0039165695 = sum of:
    0.0039165695 = product of:
      0.007833139 = sum of:
        0.007833139 = weight(_text_:a in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007833139 = score(doc=3954,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0019582848 = product of:
  0.0039165695 = sum of:
    0.0039165695 = product of:
      0.007833139 = sum of:
        0.007833139 = weight(_text_:a in 4625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007833139 = score(doc=4625,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4625, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Washington Post reports that the US Justice Department has launched a criminal and intelligence investigation into Alexandra Elbakyan, founder of Sci-Hub

Type

a

0.0018577921 = product of:
  0.0037155843 = sum of:
    0.0037155843 = product of:
      0.0074311686 = sum of:
        0.0074311686 = weight(_text_:a in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0074311686 = score(doc=2299,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.

Type

a

0.0018577921 = product of:
  0.0037155843 = sum of:
    0.0037155843 = product of:
      0.0074311686 = sum of:
        0.0074311686 = weight(_text_:a in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0074311686 = score(doc=4333,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

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

0.0018318077 = product of:
  0.0036636153 = sum of:
    0.0036636153 = product of:
      0.0073272306 = sum of:
        0.0073272306 = weight(_text_:a in 3154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0073272306 = score(doc=3154,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3154, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a