Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × 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) 0.01 
    0.0071533015 = product of:
  0.025036555 = sum of:
    0.007859954 = product of:
      0.039299767 = sum of:
        0.039299767 = weight(_text_:system in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039299767 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0171766 = product of:
      0.0343532 = sum of:
        0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0343532 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
    Theme
    Content Management System
  2. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.00 
    0.004087601 = product of:
  0.014306603 = sum of:
    0.0044914023 = product of:
      0.022457011 = sum of:
        0.022457011 = weight(_text_:system in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022457011 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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".
  3. 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) 0.00 
    0.0037117435 = product of:
  0.0129911015 = sum of:
    0.003175901 = product of:
      0.015879504 = sum of:
        0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015879504 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  4. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.00 
    0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.
  5. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.00 
    0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  6. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.00 
    0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
  7. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.00 
    0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  8. Somers, J.: Torching the modern-day library of Alexandria : somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them. (2017) 0.00 
    0.0014021716 = product of:
  0.0098152 = sum of:
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.
  9. Brown, D.J.: Repositories and journals: are they in conflict? : a literature review of relevant literature (2010) 0.00 
    8.0203614E-4 = product of:
  0.0056142528 = sum of:
    0.0056142528 = product of:
      0.028071264 = sum of:
        0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028071264 = score(doc=3954,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.
  10. Buranyi, S.: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? (2017) 0.00 
    7.9397525E-4 = product of:
  0.0055578267 = sum of:
    0.0055578267 = product of:
      0.027789133 = sum of:
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=3711,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 3711, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3711)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    It is an industry like no other, with profit margins to rival Google - and it was created by one of Britain's most notorious tycoons: Robert Maxwell. "Even scientists who are fighting for reform are often not aware of the roots of the system: how, in the boom years after the second world war, entrepreneurs built fortunes by taking publishing out of the hands of scientists and expanding the business on a previously unimaginable scale. And no one was more transformative and ingenious than Robert Maxwell, who turned scientific journals into a spectacular money-making machine that bankrolled his rise in British society."
  11. Collins, H.M.; Reyes-Galindo, L.; Ginsparg, P.: ¬A note concerning primary source knowledge (2017) 0.00 
    6.8055023E-4 = product of:
  0.0047638514 = sum of:
    0.0047638514 = product of:
      0.023819257 = sum of:
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 3592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=3592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 3592, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3592)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    We present the results of running 4 different papers through the automated filtering system used by the open access preprint server "arXiv" to classify papers and implement quality control barriers. The exercise was carried out in order to assess whether these highly sophisticated, state-of-the-art filters can distinguish between papers that are controversial or have gone past their "sell-by date," and otherwise normal papers. We conclude that not even the arXiv filters, which are otherwise successful in filtering fringe-topic papers, can fully acquire "Domain-Specific Discrimination" and thus distinguish technical papers that are taken seriously by an expert community from those that are not. Finally, we discuss the implications this has for citizen and policy-maker engagement with the Primary Source Knowledge of a technical domain.
  12. Wakeling, S.; Spezi, V.; Fry, J.; Creaser, C.; Pinfield, S.; Willett, P.: Academic communities : the role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication (2019) 0.00 
    5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.

Authors

Types

Themes