Search (38 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Brembs, B.: ¬Die Dreifaltigkeit des Versagens (2021) 0.00 
    0.002921585 = product of:
  0.033598226 = sum of:
    0.012791129 = weight(_text_:und in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012791129 = score(doc=393,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
    0.020807097 = weight(_text_:im in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020807097 = score(doc=393,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.3123187 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    Die großen Wissenschaftsverlage sitzen weiter fest im Sattel. An der Qualität ihrer Arbeit kann es nicht liegen: Immer mehr Aufrufe fordern, das kaputte und destruktive Zeitschriftensystem durch zeitgemäße Lösungen zu ersetzen.
  2. Herb, U.: Sci-hub = Spy-Hub? (2020) 0.00 
    0.0025378224 = product of:
  0.029184956 = sum of:
    0.01790758 = weight(_text_:und in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01790758 = score(doc=5333,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 5333, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5333)
    0.011277375 = product of:
      0.02255475 = sum of:
        0.02255475 = weight(_text_:29 in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02255475 = score(doc=5333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    Phishing-Verdacht gegen die Schattenbibliothek. Wieder einmal drohen der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub, die kostenpflichtige Verlagspublikationen wissenschaftlicher Art unter Umgehung des Copyrights kostenlos verbreitet, juristische Widrigkeiten. Bereits 2017 gestand ein New Yorker Gericht Elsevier, neben Wiley und Springer Nature einer der drei größten Wissenschaftsverlage, 15 Millionen US-Dollar Schadensersatz für Urheberrechtsverletzungen zu, basierend auf einer durch Elsevier dem Gericht vorgelegten Liste von 100 Artikeln, die von den Schattenbibliotheken Sci-Hub und LibGen illegal zur Verfügung gestellt wurden. Dieses und andere Urteile ließen sich jedoch mangels Zugriffes auf Sci-Hub und dessen Verantwortliche außerhalb des juristischen Einflussbereiches der USA nicht durchsetzen.
    Date
    29. 6.2019 17:46:17
  3. Hummel, P.: Millionen Fachartikel illegal im Netz verfügbar (2016) 0.00 
    0.0025301666 = product of:
  0.029096916 = sum of:
    0.011077442 = weight(_text_:und in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011077442 = score(doc=2871,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.21206908 = fieldWeight in 2871, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2871)
    0.018019475 = weight(_text_:im in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018019475 = score(doc=2871,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.27047595 = fieldWeight in 2871, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2871)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    Die Online-Plattform Sci-Hub überwindet die Paywalls der Verlage und baut eine riesige "Schattenbibliothek" der Wissenschaft auf. Auch Gerichte können sie bislang nicht stoppen. Das hatte sich Elsevier sicherlich anders vorgestellt. Der große Wissenschaftsverlag hat im Juni 2015 Klage gegen die Online-Plattformen Sci-Hub und LibGen eingereicht. Der Grund: Dort war eine riesige Anzahl akademischer Publikationen frei und kostenlos zugänglich gemacht worden. Sci-Hub bot Nutzern Zugriff auf Millionen Veröffentlichungen, viele davon urheberrechtlich geschützt. Seit nun letzte Woche die Website Bigthink.com ausführlich über das Verfahren gegen Sci-Hub vor einem US-Bundesbezirksgerichts in New York berichtet hat, verbreitet sich die Nachricht vom "Pirate Bay für die Wissenschaft" in den sozialen Netzwerken rasant. Eine bessere Werbemaßnahme als das Gerichtsverfahren hätte sich Sci-Hub kaum wünschen können. Elsevier ist einer der größten akademischen Verlage der Welt. Nach Presseberichten macht das Unternehmen mit seinen mehr als 2200 Journalen einen jährlichen Reinerlös von über einer Milliarde Dollar. Doch es sieht seine Geschäfte offenbar durch Sci-Hub bedroht. Mit aktuell mehr als 49 Millionen Veröffentlichungen, die 35 Terabyte an Daten umfassen, wie der (nicht verifizierte) Twitter-Account @Sci_Hub schreibt, umfasst die "Schattenbibliothek" wohl eine der größten je vorhandenen Sammlungen akademischer Literatur.
    Source
    Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2016, H.2. [http://www.spektrum.de/news/sci-hub-millionen-fachartikel-illegal-im-netz-verfuegbar/1399718]
  4. Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017) 0.00 
    0.0023690434 = product of:
  0.027243998 = sum of:
    0.0144715095 = weight(_text_:und in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0144715095 = score(doc=3882,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 3882, 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=3882)
    0.012772488 = product of:
      0.025544977 = sum of:
        0.025544977 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025544977 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    In der Wissenschaft geht es um die Suche nach Erkenntnissen. Für diese ist der Austausch von Ideen von entscheidender Bedeutung. Neben wissenschaftlichen Meetings und Konferenzen sind Publikationen hierfür das Medium - und diese Publikationen finden heute vor allem in englischsprachigen Fachzeitschriften statt, die das Gutachterprinzip ("Peer Review") anwenden. In diesem Artikel möchte ich erklären, dass dafür theoretisch zwar vieles spricht, dass in der Praxis aber wirtschaftliche Gewinnabsichten ebenso wie persönliche Interessenkonflikte die Freiheit der Wissenschaft einschränken.
    Date
    9.10.2017 15:48:22
  5. Weber, S.: ¬Die Automatisierung der Inhalte-Erstellung (2018) 0.00 
    0.0022414946 = product of:
  0.025777187 = sum of:
    0.013292931 = weight(_text_:und in 4565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013292931 = score(doc=4565,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 4565, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4565)
    0.012484257 = weight(_text_:im in 4565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012484257 = score(doc=4565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.18739122 = fieldWeight in 4565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4565)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    KI als Autor von Content: "Als ich das zum ersten Mal sah, dachte ich: Was zur Hölle ist das?" ( Ein Nutzer berichtet in der Dokumentation "Inside Google" über seine Reaktion auf das für ihn erste automatisch generierte Fotoalbum von Google Photos) - "Kopieren, Programmieren, Automatisieren sind die neuen [.] Werkzeuge. (Kenneth Goldsmith, Klappentext zu "Uncreative Writing") Weshalb staunte der versierte App-Nutzer? Die Google Photos-App hat automatisch eine Bildergalerie von Fotos seines jüngsten Urlaubs produziert. Wie aus dem Nichts war sie da, ungefragt: Ein- und auszoomende Urlaubsbilder, die Übergänge zum Teil mit Effekten, wie wir sie von PowerPoint kennen. Die Google-App hat alle Bilder geolokalisiert, die Reiseroute rekonstruiert und Datumsangaben ergänzt. Schließlich unterlegte sie das Ganze mit der üblichen Einheitsmusik, die wir von Abertausenden anderen Videos im Netz kennen.
    Content
    Dieser Artikel ist eine leicht überarbeitete Fassung von Kapitel 2 des Buchs "Roboterjournalismus, Chatbots & Co. Wie Algorithmen Inhalte produzieren und unser Denken beeinflussen", erschienen am 19.11.2018 in der Heise-Reihe "Telepolis". Mit einer Liste von Anbietern. Vgl. auch: http://www.heise.de/_]4228345.
  6. Herb, U.: Ablehnungsquoten wissenschaftlicher Journale (2016) 0.00 
    0.0018049324 = product of:
  0.020756721 = sum of:
    0.0144715095 = weight(_text_:und in 2701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0144715095 = score(doc=2701,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = 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)
    0.0062852125 = product of:
      0.012570425 = sum of:
        0.012570425 = weight(_text_:1 in 2701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012570425 = score(doc=2701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2171262 = fieldWeight in 2701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2701)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    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.
    Source
    http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/47/47326/1.html
  7. Lohnt sich der DEAL? 0.00 
    0.0017843437 = product of:
  0.020519953 = sum of:
    0.010853632 = weight(_text_:und in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010853632 = score(doc=1065,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.20778441 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
    0.009666322 = product of:
      0.019332644 = sum of:
        0.019332644 = weight(_text_:29 in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019332644 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Content
    " DASS DAS keine normalen Verhandlungen waren, konnte man bereits an der Pressemitteilung erkennen, die am Mittwochvormittag von der Pressestelle der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK) verschickt wurde. Überschrift: "The DEAL Consortium and Elsevier Announce Transformative Open Access Agreement for Germany". Deutsche Übersetzung: Fehlanzeige. So wie auch der gesamte Meldungstext und die beigefügten Statements rein englischsprachig waren. Weil die HRK, Konsortialführer von DEAL, nichts mehr von Wissenschaftskommunikation auf Deutsch hält? Wohl kaum. Die tatsächliche Erklärung dürfte darin bestehen, dass nach sieben Jahren Verhandlungs-Drama, Teile davon auf offener Bühne, die Erleichterung über den abgeschlossenen Open-Access-Transformationsvertrag zwar groß war und die Stimmung unter den neuen Partnern gut. Aber nicht so gut, dass die HRK sich eine eigenständige Übersetzung der mit Elsevier sicherlich bis ins Detail verhandelten Pressemitteilung erlauben zu können glaubte. Eine Abstimmung aber hätte wiederum ein derart komplexes Räderwerk erneut in Bewegung gesetzt, das nicht zu dem Zeitdruck passte, raus zu wollen mit der Agreement-Nachricht. ... "
    Date
    5.10.2023 18:29:15
  8. Auer, S.: Towards an Open Research Knowledge Graph : vor einer Revolutionierung des wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens (2018) 0.00 
    0.0012568132 = product of:
  0.0144533515 = sum of:
    0.00895379 = weight(_text_:und in 4111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00895379 = score(doc=4111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 4111, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4111)
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 4111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=4111,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 4111, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4111)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    Die TIB - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften hat ein Positionspapier zum Open Research Knowledge Graph veröffentlicht. Auer, Sören; Blümel, Ina; Ewerth, Ralph; Garatzogianni, Alexandra; Heller, Lambert; Hoppe, Anett; Kasprzik, Anna; Koepler, Oliver; Nejdl, Wolfgang; Plank, Margret; Sens, Irina; Stocker, Markus; Tullney, Marco; Vidal, Maria-Esther; van Wezenbeek, Wilma (2018): Towards an Open Research Knowledge Graph.
    Source
    Open Password. 2018, Nr. 318 vom 08.02.2018 [http://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=405&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045]
  9. Somers, J.: Torching the modern-day library of Alexandria : somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them. (2017) 0.00 
    0.0010592652 = product of:
  0.01218155 = sum of:
    0.0057953056 = product of:
      0.011590611 = sum of:
        0.011590611 = weight(_text_:international in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011590611 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.14742646 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.006386244 = product of:
      0.012772488 = sum of:
        0.012772488 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012772488 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    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.
  10. Schleim, S.: Fake Science? : Die Sache mit den Raubverlagen (2018) 0.00 
    8.173497E-4 = product of:
  0.018799042 = sum of:
    0.018799042 = weight(_text_:und in 1627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018799042 = score(doc=1627,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.35989314 = fieldWeight in 1627, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1627)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    Über gute Wissenschaft und die Privatisierung öffentlicher Mittel Publizieren, von lateinisch publicare = veröffentlichen, ist ein Wesensmerkmal der Wissenschaft. Neue wissenschaftliche Kenntnisse sollen nicht nur den Fachkollegen und potenziell für den Fortschritt der ganzen Menschheit zur Verfügung stehen, sondern durch die Veröffentlichung auch überprüfbar werden. So würden langfristig Fehler aufgespürt, entfernt und dann gesicherte Erkenntnis übrig bleiben. So weit die Theorie. In der Praxis haben große Verlagshäuser wie Elsevier (laut Wikipedia rund 2,5 Milliarden Pfund Jahresumsatz), Springer Nature (rund 1,6 Milliarden Euro), Taylor and Francis (rund 530 Millionen Pfund) oder Wiley (rund 1,7 Milliarden Dollar), die die Veröffentlichungen traditionell organisieren, große Umsätze und damit auch große Profitinteressen. In Zeiten des Internets und des e-Publishings wird deren Rolle zunehmend in Frage gestellt. Immer mehr Zeitschriften erscheinen nur noch online. Und selbst bei denjenigen, die noch als Papierversion zirkulieren, spielt sich für die Wissenschaftler das Wesentliche in den Vorab-Veröffentlichungen online ab. Bis die Druckausgabe erscheint, sind die Studien mitunter schon längst Schnee von gestern.
  11. Mühlbauer, P.: Konzeptueller Penis als Ursache für den Klimawandel (2017) 0.00 
    7.864951E-4 = product of:
  0.018089388 = sum of:
    0.018089388 = weight(_text_:und in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018089388 = score(doc=3663,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 3663, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3663)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    Ein Philosoph und ein Mathematiker haben den Sokal-Hoax wiederholt und dabei festgestellt, dass einige akademische Bereiche auch 20 Jahre danach nichts daraus gelernt haben.
  12. Brembs, B.; Förstner, K.; Kraker, P.; Lauer, G.; Müller-Birn, C.; Schönbrodt, F.; Siems, R.: Auf einmal Laborratte (2021) 0.00 
    7.864951E-4 = product of:
  0.018089388 = sum of:
    0.018089388 = weight(_text_:und in 83) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018089388 = score(doc=83,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 83, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=83)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    Die großen Verlage haben ein neues Geschäftsfeld entdeckt: die Überwachung von Wissenschaftlern und den Verkauf ihrer Daten. Sie nehmen dadurch weitreichenden Einfluss auf die Forschung. Die Europäische Union muss dringend eingreifen.
    Series
    Forschung und Lehre
  13. Jochum, U.: Donald Trump und der bibliothekarisch-bürokratische Allianzkomplex : Geschrieben von Uwe Jochum am 19.2.2017, (2017) 0.00 
    7.7859045E-4 = product of:
  0.01790758 = sum of:
    0.01790758 = weight(_text_:und in 3446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01790758 = score(doc=3446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 3446, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3446)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
  14. Dobratz, S.; Neuroth, H.: nestor: Network of Expertise in long-term STOrage of digital Resources : a digital preservation initiative for Germany (2004) 0.00 
    7.539565E-4 = product of:
  0.0086705 = sum of:
    0.0038373384 = weight(_text_:und in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038373384 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.07346288 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.004833161 = product of:
      0.009666322 = sum of:
        0.009666322 = weight(_text_:29 in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009666322 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.11659596 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.
    As follow up, in 2002 the nestor long-term archiving working group provided an initial spark towards planning and organising coordinated activities concerning the long-term preservation and long-term availability of digital documents in Germany. This resulted in a workshop, held 29 - 30 October 2002, where major tasks were discussed. Influenced by the demands and progress of the nestor network, the participants reached agreement to start work on application-oriented projects and to address the following topics: * Overlapping problems o Collection and preservation of digital objects (selection criteria, preservation policy) o Definition of criteria for trusted repositories o Creation of models of cooperation, etc. * Digital objects production process o Analysis of potential conflicts between production and long-term preservation o Documentation of existing document models and recommendations for standards models to be used for long-term preservation o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. * Transfer of digital objects o Object data and metadata o Transfer protocols and interoperability o Handling of different document types, e.g. dynamic publications, etc. * Long-term preservation of digital objects o Design and prototype implementation of depot systems for digital objects (OAIS was chosen to be the best functional model.) o Authenticity o Functional requirements on user interfaces of an depot system o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. At the end of the workshop, participants decided to establish a permanent distributed infrastructure for long-term preservation and long-term accessibility of digital resources in Germany comparable, e.g., to the Digital Preservation Coalition in the UK. The initial phase, nestor, is now being set up by the above-mentioned 3-year funding project.
  15. Graf, K.: Sci Hub, Fernleihe und Open Access (2016) 0.00 
    6.6736323E-4 = product of:
  0.015349354 = sum of:
    0.015349354 = weight(_text_:und in 2325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015349354 = score(doc=2325,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 2325, 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=2325)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
  16. Reuß, R.: ¬Der Geist gehört dem Staat : Open Access (2015) 0.00 
    5.561361E-4 = product of:
  0.012791129 = sum of:
    0.012791129 = weight(_text_:und in 2512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012791129 = score(doc=2512,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 2512, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2512)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Source
    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/forschung-und-lehre/baden-wuerttemberg-entrechtet-seine-wissenschaftlichen-autoren-13988149-p3.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_3
  17. Döpfner, M.: Totale Transparenz endet immer totalitär (2021) 0.00 
    5.561361E-4 = product of:
  0.012791129 = sum of:
    0.012791129 = weight(_text_:und in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012791129 = score(doc=110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    "Wir wissen, wo Du bist. Wir wissen, wo Du warst. Wir wissen mehr oder weniger, woran Du denkst." - Europa muss die Daten-Allmacht der amerikanischen und chinesischen Tech-Giganten brechen. Ein offener Brief des Vorstandschefs von Axel Springer an die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission.
  18. Buranyi, S.: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? (2017) 0.00 
    2.3911135E-4 = product of:
  0.005499561 = sum of:
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=3711,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 3711, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3711)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    1. 7.2017 12:34:52

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 33
  • e 4

Themes