Search (52 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011) 0.07 
    0.07103566 = product of:
  0.14207132 = sum of:
    0.07190624 = weight(_text_:management in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07190624 = score(doc=4198,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.45151538 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.07016508 = sum of:
      0.02535474 = weight(_text_:science in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02535474 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.044810344 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044810344 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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(2/4)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.363-374
    Theme
    Content Management System
  2. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.04 
    0.043636583 = product of:
  0.087273166 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.057619542 = sum of:
      0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025612153 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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(2/4)
    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
    Object
    Social Science Research Network
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635
  3. Salminen, A.; Jauhiainen, E.; Nurmeksela, R.: ¬A life cycle model of XML documents (2014) 0.04 
    0.043268 = product of:
  0.086536 = sum of:
    0.071168706 = weight(_text_:management in 1553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071168706 = score(doc=1553,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 1553, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1553)
    0.015367293 = product of:
      0.030734586 = sum of:
        0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 1553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030734586 = score(doc=1553,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 1553, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.12, S.2564-2580
  4. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.04 
    0.03721175 = product of:
  0.0744235 = sum of:
    0.023722902 = weight(_text_:management in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023722902 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.050700597 = sum of:
      0.025094684 = weight(_text_:science in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025094684 = score(doc=4051,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20163277 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.025605911 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025605911 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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(2/4)
    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
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Special issue on "The reward system of science".
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575
  5. Engels, T.C.E; Istenic Starcic, A.; Kulczycki, E.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.: Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? (2018) 0.03 
    0.031908616 = product of:
  0.06381723 = sum of:
    0.023722902 = weight(_text_:management in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023722902 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.04009433 = sum of:
      0.014488421 = weight(_text_:science in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014488421 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.025605911 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025605911 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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(2/4)
    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
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 70(2018) no.6, S.592-607
  6. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.02 
    0.02282866 = product of:
  0.04565732 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
    0.016003694 = product of:
      0.03200739 = sum of:
        0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03200739 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.6, S.674-687
  7. Abad-García, M.-F.; González-Teruel, A.; González-Llinares, J.: Effectiveness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar at finding spanish articles in repositories (2018) 0.02 
    0.019354446 = product of:
  0.03870889 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
    0.009055263 = product of:
      0.018110527 = sum of:
        0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018110527 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.4, S.619-622
  8. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.01 
    0.0144048855 = product of:
  0.057619542 = sum of:
    0.057619542 = sum of:
      0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025612153 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1614-1628
  9. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.01 
    0.012529479 = product of:
  0.050117917 = sum of:
    0.050117917 = sum of:
      0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018110527 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431
  10. Ferro, N.; Silvello, G.: NESTOR: a formal model for digital archives (2013) 0.01 
    0.007413407 = product of:
  0.029653627 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=2707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.6, S.1206-1240
  11. Academic publishing : No peeking (2014) 0.01 
    0.006338685 = product of:
  0.02535474 = sum of:
    0.02535474 = product of:
      0.05070948 = sum of:
        0.05070948 = weight(_text_:science in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05070948 = score(doc=805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Series
    Science and technology
  12. Bläsi, C.: Literary studies, business studies - and information science? : Yes, it's a key discipline for the empowerment of publishing studies for the digital age (2015) 0.01 
    0.006273671 = product of:
  0.025094684 = sum of:
    0.025094684 = product of:
      0.05018937 = sum of:
        0.05018937 = weight(_text_:science in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05018937 = score(doc=2986,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  13. Buranyi, S.: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? (2017) 0.01 
    0.0054894625 = product of:
  0.02195785 = sum of:
    0.02195785 = product of:
      0.0439157 = sum of:
        0.0439157 = weight(_text_:science in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0439157 = score(doc=3711,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 3711, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3711)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
  14. Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Dobránszki, J.: Do open access data files represent an academic Risk? (2015) 0.01 
    0.005433158 = product of:
  0.021732632 = sum of:
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 2253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=2253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 2253, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2253)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2390-2391
  15. James, J.E.: Free-to-publish, free-to-read, or both? : Cost, equality of access, and integrity in science publishing (2017) 0.01 
    0.005433158 = product of:
  0.021732632 = sum of:
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 3652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=3652,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3652, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.6, S.1584-1589
  16. Publish and don't be damned : some science journals that claim to peer review papers do not do so (2018) 0.01 
    0.005433158 = product of:
  0.021732632 = sum of:
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=4333,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    This article appeared in the Science and technology section of the print edition under the headline "Publish and don't be damned".
    Source
    https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so
  17. Dalen, H.P. van; Henkens, K.: Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture : a worldwide survey (2012) 0.00 
    0.0047052535 = product of:
  0.018821014 = sum of:
    0.018821014 = product of:
      0.03764203 = sum of:
        0.03764203 = weight(_text_:science in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03764203 = score(doc=2299,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1282-1293
  18. Zahedi, Z.; Costas, R.; Wouters, P.: Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications (2017) 0.00 
    0.0039210445 = product of:
  0.015684178 = sum of:
    0.015684178 = product of:
      0.031368356 = sum of:
        0.031368356 = weight(_text_:science in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031368356 = score(doc=3837,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2511-2521
  19. Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: How quickly do publications get read? : the evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles (2018) 0.00 
    0.0039210445 = product of:
  0.015684178 = sum of:
    0.015684178 = product of:
      0.031368356 = sum of:
        0.031368356 = weight(_text_:science in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031368356 = score(doc=4015,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Within science, citation counts are widely used to estimate research impact but publication delays mean that they are not useful for recent research. This gap can be filled by Mendeley reader counts, which are valuable early impact indicators for academic articles because they appear before citations and correlate strongly with them. Nevertheless, it is not known how Mendeley readership counts accumulate within the year of publication, and so it is unclear how soon they can be used. In response, this paper reports a longitudinal weekly study of the Mendeley readers of articles in 6 library and information science journals from 2016. The results suggest that Mendeley readers accrue from when articles are first available online and continue to steadily build. For journals with large publication delays, articles can already have substantial numbers of readers by their publication date. Thus, Mendeley reader counts may even be useful as early impact indicators for articles before they have been officially published in a journal issue. If field normalized indicators are needed, then these can be generated when journal issues are published using the online first date.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.158-167
  20. Rodrigues, R.S.; Abadal, E.: Scientific journals in Brazil and Spain : alternative publishing models (2014) 0.00 
    0.0038418232 = product of:
  0.015367293 = sum of:
    0.015367293 = product of:
      0.030734586 = sum of:
        0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 1504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030734586 = score(doc=1504,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 1504, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper describes high-quality journals in Brazil and Spain, with an emphasis on the distribution models used. It presents the general characteristics (age, type of publisher, and theme) and analyzes the distribution model by studying the type of format (print or digital), the type of access (open access or subscription), and the technology platform used. The 549 journals analyzed (249 in Brazil and 300 in Spain) are included in the 2011 Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Data on each journal were collected directly from their websites between March and October 2012. Brazil has a fully open access distribution model (97%) in which few journals require payment by authors thanks to cultural, financial, operational, and technological support provided by public agencies. In Spain, open access journals account for 55% of the total and have also received support from public agencies, although to a lesser extent. These results show that there are systems support of open access in scientific journals other than the "author pays" model advocated by the Finch report for the United Kingdom.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2145-2151

Authors

Types

  • a 51
  • el 4
  • More… Less…

Themes