Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Herb, U.: Überwachungskapitalismus und Wissenschaftssteuerung (2019) 0.02 
    0.020571467 = product of:
  0.051428664 = sum of:
    0.012279914 = weight(_text_:information in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012279914 = score(doc=5624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
    0.03914875 = weight(_text_:und in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03914875 = score(doc=5624,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Die Metamorphose des Wissenschaftsverlags Elsevier zum Research Intelligence Dienstleister ist paradigmatisch für die neuen Möglichkeiten der Protokollierung und Steuerung von Wissenschaft.
    Content
    Der Text ist eine überarbeitete Version des von Herb, U. (2018): Zwangsehen und Bastarde : Wohin steuert Big Data die Wissenschaft? In: Information - Wissenschaft & Praxis, 69(2-3), S. 81-88. DOI:10.1515/iwp-2018-0021.
    Source
    https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Ueberwachungskapitalismus-und-Wissenschaftssteuerung-4480357.html?seite=all
  2. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.01 
    0.009178056 = product of:
  0.022945141 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.015270196 = product of:
      0.030540392 = sum of:
        0.030540392 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030540392 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1578718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045082662 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  3. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.01 
    0.009178056 = product of:
  0.022945141 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.015270196 = product of:
      0.030540392 = sum of:
        0.030540392 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030540392 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1578718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045082662 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431
  4. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.01 
    0.009178056 = product of:
  0.022945141 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
    0.015270196 = product of:
      0.030540392 = sum of:
        0.030540392 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030540392 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1578718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045082662 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.6, S.674-687
  5. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.01 
    0.007342445 = product of:
  0.018356113 = sum of:
    0.006139957 = weight(_text_:information in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006139957 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.012216156 = product of:
      0.024432313 = sum of:
        0.024432313 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024432313 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1578718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045082662 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575
  6. Herb, U.: Ablehnungsquoten wissenschaftlicher Journale (2016) 0.01 
    0.0055364696 = product of:
  0.027682347 = sum of:
    0.027682347 = weight(_text_:und in 2701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027682347 = score(doc=2701,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 2701, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2701)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Je höher die Ablehnungsrate eines wissenschaftlichen Journals, desto exklusiver aus Sicht von Autoren das Privileg einer akzeptierten Einreichung. Und - so die Annahme - umso größer die Qualität der publizierenden Journale. Eine Untersuchung widerspricht nun dieser landläufigen Meinung und spielt in die Hände von Kritikern wie Prof. Gerhard Fröhlich von der Universität Linz, der Ablehnungsquoten als reinen Prestigeschmuck ansieht.
  7. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: SlideShare presentations, citations, users, and trends : a professional site with academic and educational uses (2017) 0.00 
    0.0026586796 = product of:
  0.013293398 = sum of:
    0.013293398 = weight(_text_:information in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013293398 = score(doc=3766,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1989-2003
  8. Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: How quickly do publications get read? : the evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles (2018) 0.00 
    0.0021708026 = product of:
  0.010854012 = sum of:
    0.010854012 = weight(_text_:information in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010854012 = score(doc=4015,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Within science, citation counts are widely used to estimate research impact but publication delays mean that they are not useful for recent research. This gap can be filled by Mendeley reader counts, which are valuable early impact indicators for academic articles because they appear before citations and correlate strongly with them. Nevertheless, it is not known how Mendeley readership counts accumulate within the year of publication, and so it is unclear how soon they can be used. In response, this paper reports a longitudinal weekly study of the Mendeley readers of articles in 6 library and information science journals from 2016. The results suggest that Mendeley readers accrue from when articles are first available online and continue to steadily build. For journals with large publication delays, articles can already have substantial numbers of readers by their publication date. Thus, Mendeley reader counts may even be useful as early impact indicators for articles before they have been officially published in a journal issue. If field normalized indicators are needed, then these can be generated when journal issues are published using the online first date.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.158-167
  9. Dalen, H.P. van; Henkens, K.: Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture : a worldwide survey (2012) 0.00 
    0.0018419871 = product of:
  0.009209936 = sum of:
    0.009209936 = weight(_text_:information in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009209936 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1282-1293
  10. Nelson, G.M.; Eggett, D.L.: Citations, mandates, and money : author motivations to publish in chemistry hybrid open access journals (2017) 0.00 
    0.0017366421 = product of:
  0.00868321 = sum of:
    0.00868321 = weight(_text_:information in 3838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00868321 = score(doc=3838,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 3838, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3838)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Hybrid open access refers to articles freely accessible via the Internet but which originate from an academic journal that provides most of its content via subscription. The effect of hybrid open access on citation counts and author behavior in the field of chemistry is something that has not been widely studied. We compared 814 open access articles and 27,621 subscription access articles published from 2006 through 2011 in American Chemical Society journals. As expected, the 2 comparison groups are not equal in all respects. Cumulative citation data were analyzed from years 2-5 following an article's publication date. A citation advantage for open access articles was correlated with the journal impact factor (IF) in low and medium IF journals, but not in high IF journals. Open access articles have a 24% higher mean citation rate than their subscription counterparts in low IF journals (confidence limits 8-42%, p = .0022) and similarly, a 26% higher mean citation rate in medium IF journals (confidence limits 14-40%, p < .001). Open access articles in high IF journals had no significant difference compared to subscription access articles (13% lower mean citation rate, confidence limits -27-3%, p = .10). These results are correlative, not causative, and may not be completely due to an open access effect. Authors of the open access articles were also surveyed to determine why they chose a hybrid open access option, paid the required article processing charge, and whether they believed it was money well spent. Authors primarily chose open access because of funding mandates; however, most considered the money well spent because open access increases information access to the scientific community and the general public, and potentially increases citations to their scholarship.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2501-2510
  11. Lozano, G.A.; Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.: ¬The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age (2012) 0.00 
    0.0015349891 = product of:
  0.0076749455 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2140-2145
  12. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M.: Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books (2017) 0.00 
    0.0015349891 = product of:
  0.0076749455 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=3768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.2004-2016
  13. Zahedi, Z.; Costas, R.; Wouters, P.: Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications (2017) 0.00 
    0.0015349891 = product of:
  0.0076749455 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2511-2521
  14. 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 
    0.0015349891 = product of:
  0.0076749455 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.4, S.619-622

Authors

Languages

  • e 12
  • d 2

Types