Search (56 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Bläsi, C.: Literary studies, business studies - and information science? : Yes, it's a key discipline for the empowerment of publishing studies for the digital age (2015) 0.01 
    0.0060494035 = product of:
  0.06049403 = sum of:
    0.05471275 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05471275 = score(doc=2986,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.5630881 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
    0.003527615 = weight(_text_:in in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003527615 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
    Pages
    S.81-92
    Series
    Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft; Bd.66
    Source
    Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff
  2. Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011) 0.00 
    0.0032095644 = product of:
  0.02407173 = sum of:
    0.0030866629 = weight(_text_:in in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030866629 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.008784681 = product of:
      0.026354041 = sum of:
        0.026354041 = weight(_text_:l in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026354041 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.010228428 = product of:
      0.020456856 = sum of:
        0.020456856 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020456856 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    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
  3. Kliegl, R.: ¬A vision of scientific communication (2016) 0.00 
    0.003147656 = product of:
  0.03147656 = sum of:
    0.014048031 = weight(_text_:und in 3249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014048031 = score(doc=3249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 3249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3249)
    0.014048031 = weight(_text_:und in 3249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014048031 = score(doc=3249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 3249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3249)
    0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 3249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033805002 = score(doc=3249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 3249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3249)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Pages
    S. 263-270
    Source
    Wissenschaftliches Publizieren: zwischen Digitalisierung, Leistungsmessung, Ökonomisierung und medialer Beobachtung. Hrsg.: Peter Weingart u. Niels Taubert
  4. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.00 
    0.001532884 = product of:
  0.015328839 = sum of:
    0.006614278 = weight(_text_:in in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006614278 = score(doc=2646,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431
  5. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.00 
    0.0014950562 = product of:
  0.014950562 = sum of:
    0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006236001 = score(doc=4635,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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
  6. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.00 
    0.0014950562 = product of:
  0.014950562 = sum of:
    0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006236001 = score(doc=2593,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Object
    Research Papers in Economics
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635
  7. 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 
    0.0014454852 = product of:
  0.014454851 = sum of:
    0.007483202 = weight(_text_:in in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007483202 = score(doc=4631,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.0011268335 = weight(_text_:s in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0011268335 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.005844816 = product of:
      0.011689632 = sum of:
        0.011689632 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011689632 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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.
    Content
    Teil eines Special Issue: Scholarly books and their evaluation context in the social sciences and humanities. Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2018-0127.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 70(2018) no.6, S.592-607
  8. Rowley, J.; Johnson, F.; Sbaffi, L.; Frass, W.; Devine, E.: Academics' behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals (2017) 0.00 
    0.0013516559 = product of:
  0.013516559 = sum of:
    0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005833246 = score(doc=3597,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=3597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=3597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1201-1211
  9. Collins, H.M.; Reyes-Galindo, L.; Ginsparg, P.: ¬A note concerning primary source knowledge (2017) 0.00 
    0.0012961577 = product of:
  0.012961577 = sum of:
    0.003741601 = weight(_text_:in in 3592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003741601 = score(doc=3592,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 3592, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3592)
    0.007529726 = product of:
      0.022589177 = sum of:
        0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 3592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022589177 = score(doc=3592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 3592, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3592)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 3592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=3592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3592)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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
  10. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.00 
    0.0012533319 = product of:
  0.012533318 = sum of:
    0.0038187557 = weight(_text_:in in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038187557 = score(doc=4410,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.6, S.674-687
  11. 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 
    0.0011960451 = product of:
  0.011960451 = sum of:
    0.004988801 = weight(_text_:in in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004988801 = score(doc=4051,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.0011268335 = weight(_text_:s in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0011268335 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.005844816 = product of:
      0.011689632 = sum of:
        0.011689632 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011689632 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575
  12. Zheng, H.; Aung, H.H.; Erdt, M.; Peng, T.-Q.; Raamkumar, A.S.; Theng, Y.-L.: Social media presence of scholarly journals (2019) 0.00 
    0.001150207 = product of:
  0.011502069 = sum of:
    0.0038187557 = weight(_text_:in in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038187557 = score(doc=4987,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4987, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4987)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=4987,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 4987, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4987)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=4987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4987, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4987)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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
  13. 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 
    7.4241596E-4 = product of:
  0.011136238 = sum of:
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=3608,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.005844816 = product of:
      0.011689632 = sum of:
        0.011689632 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011689632 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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.
  14. Rodrigues, R.S.; Abadal, E.: Scientific journals in Brazil and Spain : alternative publishing models (2014) 0.00 
    6.115635E-4 = product of:
  0.009173452 = sum of:
    0.007483202 = weight(_text_:in in 1504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007483202 = score(doc=1504,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1504, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1504)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=1504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1504)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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
  15. 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) 0.00 
    5.914012E-4 = product of:
  0.008871017 = sum of:
    0.0064806426 = weight(_text_:in in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064806426 = score(doc=2337,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
    0.002390375 = weight(_text_:s in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002390375 = score(doc=2337,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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
  16. 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 
    5.7837786E-4 = product of:
  0.008675667 = sum of:
    0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006236001 = score(doc=4627,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
    0.0024396663 = weight(_text_:s in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024396663 = score(doc=4627,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 75(2019) no.1, S.120-139
  17. Solomon, D.J.; Björk, B.-C.: Publication fees in open access publishing : sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal (2012) 0.00 
    5.5152754E-4 = product of:
  0.008272912 = sum of:
    0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005833246 = score(doc=754,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
    0.0024396663 = weight(_text_:s in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024396663 = score(doc=754,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    Open access (OA) journals distribute their content at no charge and use other means of funding the publication process. Publication fees or article-processing charges (APC)s have become the predominant means for funding professional OA publishing. We surveyed 1,038 authors who recently published articles in 74 OA journals that charge APCs stratified into seven discipline categories. Authors were asked about the source of funding for the APC, factors influencing their choice of a journal and past history publishing in OA and subscription journals. Additional information about the journal and the authors' country were obtained from the journal website. A total of 429 (41%) authors from 69 journals completed the survey. There were large differences in the source of funding among disciplines. Journals with impact factors charged higher APCs as did journals from disciplines where grant funding is plentiful. Fit, quality, and speed of publication were the most important factors in the authors' choice of a journal. OA was less important but a significant factor for many authors in their choice of a journal to publish. These findings are consistent with other research on OA publishing and suggest that OA publishing funded through APCs is likely to continue to grow.
    Footnote
    Vgl. Erratum in: JASIST 64(2013) no.5, S.1089.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.98-107
  18. Dalen, H.P. van; Henkens, K.: Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture : a worldwide survey (2012) 0.00 
    5.447262E-4 = product of:
  0.0081708925 = sum of:
    0.0064806426 = weight(_text_:in in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064806426 = score(doc=2299,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1282-1293
  19. García, J.A.; Rodriguez-Sánchez, R.; Fdez-Valdivia, J.: ¬The principal-agent problem in peer review : an interactionist perspective on everyday use of biomedical information (2015) 0.00 
    5.3485465E-4 = product of:
  0.00802282 = sum of:
    0.006614278 = weight(_text_:in in 1638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006614278 = score(doc=1638,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 1638, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1638)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 1638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=1638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1638, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1638)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    In economics, the principal-agent problem is the difficulty in motivating one party (the agent), to act in the best interests of another (the principal) rather than in his own interests. We consider the example of a journal editor (the principal) wondering whether his or her reviewer (the agent) is recommending rejection of a manuscript because it does not have enough quality to be published or because the reviewer dislikes effort and he/she must work to acquire in-depth knowledge of the content of the manuscript. The reviewer's effort provides him or her with superior information about a manuscript's quality. If this information is not correctly communicated, the reviewer has more information when compared with the journal editor. This inherently leads to an encouragement of moral hazard, where the editor will not know whether the reviewer has done his or her job in accordance to the editor's interest. Prescriptions need to be given as to how the journal editor should control the reviewers to curb self-interest. Besides the associate editors monitoring the peer-review process, incentives can be employed to limit moral hazard on the part of the reviewer. Drawing on agency theory, we examine the incentives motivating the reviewers to expend effort to generate information about the quality of submissions. This model predicts that for reviewers early in their careers, promotion-based incentives may mean there is no need for within-job incentives, but also that within-job rewards for a referee's performance should depend on individual differences in ability and promotion opportunities.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.297-308
  20. Abad-García, M.-F.; González-Teruel, A.; González-Llinares, J.: Effectiveness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar at finding spanish articles in repositories (2018) 0.00 
    5.3485465E-4 = product of:
  0.00802282 = sum of:
    0.006614278 = weight(_text_:in in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006614278 = score(doc=4185,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    This paper explores the usefulness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar (GS) for evaluating open access (OA) policies that demand a deposit in a repository. A case study was designed focusing on 762 financed articles with a project of FIS-2012 of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish national health service's main management body for health research. Its finance is therefore subject to the Spanish Government OA mandate. A search was carried out for full-text OA copies of the 762 articles using the four tools being evaluated and with identification of the repository housing these items. Of the 762 articles concerned, 510 OA copies were found of 353 unique articles (46.3%) in 68 repositories. OA copies were found of 81.9% of the articles in PubMed Central and copies of 49.5% of the articles in an institutional repository (IR). BASE and GS identified 93.5% of the articles and OpenAIRE 86.7%. Recolecta identified just 62.2% of the articles deposited in a Spanish IR. BASE achieved the greatest success, by locating copies deposited in IR, while GS found those deposited in disciplinary repositories. None of the tools identified copies of all the articles, so they need to be used in a complementary way when evaluating OA policies.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.4, S.619-622

Authors

Types

  • a 55
  • el 4
  • More… Less…

Themes