Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02244769 = product of:
  0.06734307 = sum of:
    0.0561033 = weight(_text_:history in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0561033 = score(doc=4631,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.2907489 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.011239768 = product of:
      0.022479536 = sum of:
        0.022479536 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022479536 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.02121283 = product of:
  0.063638486 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.01404971 = product of:
      0.02809942 = sum of:
        0.02809942 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02809942 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.020139962 = product of:
  0.120839775 = sum of:
    0.120839775 = weight(_text_:21st in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120839775 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2381352 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.5074419 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff

0.008264797 = product of:
  0.049588777 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, 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.

0.008264797 = product of:
  0.049588777 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, 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.

0.008264797 = product of:
  0.049588777 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/methodology/approach Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution. Findings A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers' perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks. Originality/value This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.

0.0057481537 = product of:
  0.03448892 = sum of:
    0.03448892 = product of:
      0.06897784 = sum of:
        0.06897784 = weight(_text_:century in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06897784 = score(doc=4333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.33202195 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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."

0.0047901277 = product of:
  0.028740766 = sum of:
    0.028740766 = product of:
      0.05748153 = sum of:
        0.05748153 = weight(_text_:century in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05748153 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.27668494 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

0.0032782655 = product of:
  0.019669592 = sum of:
    0.019669592 = product of:
      0.039339185 = sum of:
        0.039339185 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039339185 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07

0.0023416183 = product of:
  0.01404971 = sum of:
    0.01404971 = product of:
      0.02809942 = sum of:
        0.02809942 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02809942 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0023416183 = product of:
  0.01404971 = sum of:
    0.01404971 = product of:
      0.02809942 = sum of:
        0.02809942 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02809942 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

0.0023416183 = product of:
  0.01404971 = sum of:
    0.01404971 = product of:
      0.02809942 = sum of:
        0.02809942 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02809942 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0018732947 = product of:
  0.011239768 = sum of:
    0.011239768 = product of:
      0.022479536 = sum of:
        0.022479536 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022479536 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

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

0.0018732947 = product of:
  0.011239768 = sum of:
    0.011239768 = product of:
      0.022479536 = sum of:
        0.022479536 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022479536 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22