Search (52 results, page 1 of 3)

0.016261995 = product of:
  0.06504798 = sum of:
    0.0115625085 = weight(_text_:information in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0115625085 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.03721852 = weight(_text_:system in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03721852 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = 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)
    0.016266957 = product of:
      0.032533914 = sum of:
        0.032533914 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032533914 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

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

0.008808772 = product of:
  0.03523509 = sum of:
    0.004671959 = weight(_text_:information in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004671959 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.021267725 = weight(_text_:system in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021267725 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = 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)
    0.009295405 = product of:
      0.01859081 = sum of:
        0.01859081 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01859081 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

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

0.0072514787 = product of:
  0.029005915 = sum of:
    0.004671959 = weight(_text_:information in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004671959 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.015038553 = weight(_text_:system in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015038553 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = 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)
    0.009295405 = product of:
      0.01859081 = sum of:
        0.01859081 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01859081 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

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

0.0058072656 = product of:
  0.034843594 = sum of:
    0.008258934 = weight(_text_:information in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258934 = score(doc=3954,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
    0.026584659 = weight(_text_:system in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026584659 = score(doc=3954,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

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

0.005204614 = product of:
  0.031227682 = sum of:
    0.024219744 = weight(_text_:web in 1504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024219744 = score(doc=1504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1504)
    0.0070079383 = weight(_text_:information in 1504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070079383 = score(doc=1504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1504)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

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

0.005204614 = product of:
  0.031227682 = sum of:
    0.024219744 = weight(_text_:web in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024219744 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
    0.0070079383 = weight(_text_:information in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070079383 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

This study applied LDA (latent Dirichlet allocation) and regression analysis to conduct a lead-lag analysis to identify different topic evolution patterns between preprints and papers from arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS) in astrophysics over the last 20 years (1992-2011). Fifty topics in arXiv and WoS were generated using an LDA algorithm and then regression models were used to explain 4 types of topic growth patterns. Based on the slopes of the fitted equation curves, the paper redefines the topic trends and popularity. Results show that arXiv and WoS share similar topics in a given domain, but differ in evolution trends. Topics in WoS lose their popularity much earlier and their durations of popularity are shorter than those in arXiv. This work demonstrates that open access preprints have stronger growth tendency as compared to traditional printed publications.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2643-2656

0.005154444 = product of:
  0.030926663 = sum of:
    0.022834593 = weight(_text_:web in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022834593 = score(doc=940,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
    0.008092071 = weight(_text_:information in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008092071 = score(doc=940,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

Grey Literature and Open Access publications have the potential to become the basis of new types of scientific publications, in which scientific discourse and collaboration can play a central role in the dissemination of knowledge, due to their machine-readable format and electronic availability. With advances in cyber science and e-(Social) Science, an increasing number of scientific publications are required to be shared with different group members or even within communities in virtual reading environments. However, the most often used format for publishing articles on the web is still the Adobe PDF format, which limits the extent to which readers of an article can interact with online content and within their browser environment. This not only separates the formal communication - the article itself - from the informal communication about a publication - the discussion about the article - but also fails to link the different threads of communications which might appear in parallel at different locations in the scientific community as a whole. Analysis of around 30 web sites where different ways for presenting formal and informal communications were conducted shows in the identification of several prototypes of media combinations which were then evaluated against human factor aspects (distance between related information, arrangement of related information etc). Based on this evaluation we concluded that at the time of analysis, no model exist for directly integrating formal and informal communication to a single media, allowing readers of publications to directly discuss within the publication, e.g. to extend the publication with their input directly at the paragraph they wanted to comment. Therefore, a new publishing medium is necessary to fulfil the gap between the formal and informal communication, facilitating and engaging academic readers' active participating in the online scientific discourse. We have developed an online discussion service, which allows interactive features for annotation directly available at the point in the publication to which the comment refers to. Besides the exchange of ideas and the stimulation of discourse across portals and communities we approach at the same time to create a new basis for research in scientific discourse, networking and collaboration. This is supported by linking from the individual article to other publications or information items in digital libraries.

0.004927628 = product of:
  0.029565768 = sum of:
    0.0070079383 = weight(_text_:information in 3592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070079383 = score(doc=3592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3592)
    0.02255783 = weight(_text_:system in 3592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02255783 = score(doc=3592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1105-1110

0.004337178 = product of:
  0.026023068 = sum of:
    0.02018312 = weight(_text_:web in 944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018312 = score(doc=944,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 944, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=944)
    0.0058399485 = weight(_text_:information in 944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058399485 = score(doc=944,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 944, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=944)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

Delayed open access (OA) refers to scholarly articles in subscription journals made available openly on the web directly through the publisher at the expiry of a set embargo period. Although a substantial number of journals have practiced delayed OA since they started publishing e-versions, empirical studies concerning OA have often overlooked this body of literature. This study provides comprehensive quantitative measurements by identifying delayed OA journals and collecting data concerning their publication volumes, embargo lengths, and citation rates. Altogether, 492 journals were identified, publishing a combined total of 111,312 articles in 2011; 77.8% of these articles were made OA within 12 months from publication, with 85.4% becoming available within 24 months. A journal impact factor analysis revealed that delayed OA journals have citation rates on average twice as high as those of closed subscription journals and three times as high as immediate OA journals. Overall, the results demonstrate that delayed OA journals constitute an important segment of the openly available scholarly journal literature, both by their sheer article volume and by including a substantial proportion of high-impact journals.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1323-1329

0.004337178 = product of:
  0.026023068 = sum of:
    0.02018312 = weight(_text_:web in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018312 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
    0.0058399485 = weight(_text_:information in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058399485 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

Open access (OA) is free, unrestricted access to electronic versions of scholarly publications. For peer-reviewed journal articles, there are two main routes to OA: publishing in OA journals (gold OA) or archiving of article copies or manuscripts at other web locations (green OA). This study focuses on summarizing and extending current knowledge about green OA. A synthesis of previous studies indicates that green OA coverage of all published journal articles is approximately 12%, with substantial disciplinary variation. Typically, green OA copies become available after considerable time delays, partly caused by publisher-imposed embargo periods, and partly by author tendencies to archive manuscripts only periodically. Although green OA copies should ideally be archived in proper repositories, a large share is stored on home pages and similar locations, with no assurance of long-term preservation. Often such locations contain exact copies of published articles, which may infringe on the publisher's exclusive rights. The technical foundation for green OA uploading is becoming increasingly solid largely due to the rapid increase in the number of institutional repositories. The number of articles within the scope of OA mandates, which strongly influence the self-archival rate of articles, is nevertheless still low.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.237-250

0.004337178 = product of:
  0.026023068 = sum of:
    0.02018312 = weight(_text_:web in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018312 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
    0.0058399485 = weight(_text_:information in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058399485 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

MELIBEA is a directory of institutional open-access policies for research output that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the "strength" of open access (OA) mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed total Web of Science-(WoS)-indexed publication output in years 2011-2013 for 67 institutions in which OA was mandated to estimate the mandates' effectiveness: How well did the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of the WoS-indexed articles is actually deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when? We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between the MELIBEA "strength" score and deposit percentage. For three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or latency ([a] immediate deposit required; [b] deposit required for performance evaluation; [c] unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power for mandate effectiveness doubled (0.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but the present findings already suggest that it would be productive for existing and future mandates to adopt the three identified conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.11, S.2815-2828

0.004337178 = product of:
  0.026023068 = sum of:
    0.02018312 = weight(_text_:web in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018312 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
    0.0058399485 = weight(_text_:information in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058399485 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

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

0.004337178 = product of:
  0.026023068 = sum of:
    0.02018312 = weight(_text_:web in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018312 = score(doc=4987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4987, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4987)
    0.0058399485 = weight(_text_:information in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058399485 = score(doc=4987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4987, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4987)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

Recently, social media has become a potentially new way for scholarly journals to disseminate and evaluate research outputs. Scholarly journals have started promoting their research articles to a wide range of audiences via social media platforms. This article aims to investigate the social media presence of scholarly journals across disciplines. We extracted journals from Web of Science and searched for the social media presence of these journals on Facebook and Twitter. Relevant metrics and content relating to the journals' social media accounts were also crawled for data analysis. From our results, the social media presence of scholarly journals lies between 7.1% and 14.2% across disciplines; and it has shown a steady increase in the last decade. The popularity of scholarly journals on social media is distinct across disciplines. Further, we investigated whether social media metrics of journals can predict the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). We found that the number of followers and disciplines have significant effects on the JIF. In addition, a word co-occurrence network analysis was also conducted to identify popular topics discussed by scholarly journals on social media platforms. Finally, we highlight challenges and issues faced in this study and discuss future research directions.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.3, S.256-270

0.004240317 = product of:
  0.0254419 = sum of:
    0.016146496 = weight(_text_:web in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016146496 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.009295405 = product of:
      0.01859081 = sum of:
        0.01859081 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01859081 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = 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(2/12)

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.

0.0029098676 = product of:
  0.017459204 = sum of:
    0.0058399485 = weight(_text_:information in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058399485 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.011619256 = product of:
      0.023238512 = sum of:
        0.023238512 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023238512 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

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

0.0029098676 = product of:
  0.017459204 = sum of:
    0.0058399485 = weight(_text_:information in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058399485 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.011619256 = product of:
      0.023238512 = sum of:
        0.023238512 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023238512 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = 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(2/12)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635

0.0029098676 = product of:
  0.017459204 = sum of:
    0.0058399485 = weight(_text_:information in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058399485 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.011619256 = product of:
      0.023238512 = sum of:
        0.023238512 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023238512 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = 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(2/12)

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431

0.0029098676 = product of:
  0.017459204 = sum of:
    0.0058399485 = weight(_text_:information in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058399485 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
    0.011619256 = product of:
      0.023238512 = sum of:
        0.023238512 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023238512 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = 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(2/12)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.6, S.674-687

0.0021931224 = product of:
  0.026317468 = sum of:
    0.026317468 = weight(_text_:system in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026317468 = score(doc=3711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = 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)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

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."

0.001566516 = product of:
  0.018798191 = sum of:
    0.018798191 = weight(_text_:system in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018798191 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = 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)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

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.