-
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)
0.02
0.02215623 = product of:
0.066468686 = sum of:
0.016773 = weight(_text_:web in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016773 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.02326661 = weight(_text_:world in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02326661 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.16986786 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
0.016773 = weight(_text_:web in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016773 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.009656077 = product of:
0.019312155 = sum of:
0.019312155 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019312155 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(4/12)
- 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.
-
Zheng, H.; Aung, H.H.; Erdt, M.; Peng, T.-Q.; Raamkumar, A.S.; Theng, Y.-L.: Social media presence of scholarly journals (2019)
0.02
0.020144677 = product of:
0.08057871 = sum of:
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=4987,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.038646206 = weight(_text_:wide in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038646206 = score(doc=4987,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4987, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4987)
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=4987,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.25 = coord(3/12)
- 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.
-
Rodrigues, R.S.; Abadal, E.: Scientific journals in Brazil and Spain : alternative publishing models (2014)
0.01
0.0083865 = product of:
0.050318997 = sum of:
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 1504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=1504,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 1504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=1504,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.16666667 = 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.
-
Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015)
0.01
0.0083865 = product of:
0.050318997 = sum of:
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.16666667 = 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.
-
Shen, W.; Stempfhuber, M.: Embedding discussion in online publications (2013)
0.01
0.007906868 = product of:
0.047441207 = sum of:
0.023720603 = weight(_text_:web in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023720603 = score(doc=940,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.023720603 = weight(_text_:web in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023720603 = score(doc=940,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.16666667 = 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.
-
Laakso, M.; Björk, B.-C.: Delayed open access : an overlooked high-impact category of openly available scientific literature (2013)
0.01
0.0069887503 = product of:
0.0419325 = sum of:
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=944,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=944,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.16666667 = 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.
-
Björk, B.-C.; Laakso, M.; Welling, P.; Paetau, P.: Anatomy of green open access (2014)
0.01
0.0069887503 = product of:
0.0419325 = sum of:
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.16666667 = 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.
-
Vincent-Lamarre, P.; Boivin, J.; Gargouri, Y.; Larivière, V.; Harnad, S.: Estimating open access mandate effectiveness : the MELIBEA score (2016)
0.01
0.0069887503 = product of:
0.0419325 = sum of:
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.16666667 = 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.
-
Zahedi, Z.; Costas, R.; Wouters, P.: Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications (2017)
0.01
0.0069887503 = product of:
0.0419325 = sum of:
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.16666667 = 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.
-
Wakeling, S.; Creaser, C.; Pinfield, S.; Fry, J.; Spezi, V.; Willett, P.; Paramita, M.: Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors : results of a large-scale survey (2019)
0.00
0.0045545 = product of:
0.054653995 = sum of:
0.054653995 = weight(_text_:wide in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054653995 = score(doc=5317,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Abstract
- Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open-access (OA) business model, and "soundness-only" peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their "soundness." This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n = 11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness-only peer review: two-thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a "cascade" of articles between journals from the same publisher.
-
Buranyi, S.: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? (2017)
0.00
0.0033930473 = product of:
0.040716566 = sum of:
0.040716566 = weight(_text_:world in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040716566 = score(doc=3711,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 3711, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, 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."
-
Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011)
0.00
0.0014081779 = product of:
0.016898135 = sum of:
0.016898135 = product of:
0.03379627 = sum of:
0.03379627 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03379627 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:23:07
-
Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011)
0.00
0.0010058414 = product of:
0.012070097 = sum of:
0.012070097 = product of:
0.024140194 = sum of:
0.024140194 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024140194 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- 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.
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.00
0.0010058414 = product of:
0.012070097 = sum of:
0.012070097 = product of:
0.024140194 = sum of:
0.024140194 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024140194 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016)
0.00
0.0010058414 = product of:
0.012070097 = sum of:
0.012070097 = product of:
0.024140194 = sum of:
0.024140194 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024140194 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:11:17
-
Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017)
0.00
0.0010058414 = product of:
0.012070097 = sum of:
0.012070097 = product of:
0.024140194 = sum of:
0.024140194 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024140194 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
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
8.046731E-4 = product of:
0.009656077 = sum of:
0.009656077 = product of:
0.019312155 = sum of:
0.019312155 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019312155 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
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
8.046731E-4 = product of:
0.009656077 = sum of:
0.009656077 = product of:
0.019312155 = sum of:
0.019312155 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019312155 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = 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)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
