Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027386125 = product of:
  0.123237565 = sum of:
    0.02300799 = weight(_text_:data in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02300799 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.100229576 = weight(_text_:germany in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100229576 = score(doc=250,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.4564889 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Content

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

0.026335854 = product of:
  0.11851134 = sum of:
    0.012201829 = weight(_text_:data in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012201829 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.10480815 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.10630951 = weight(_text_:germany in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10630951 = score(doc=1195,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.4841796 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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.

0.010206696 = product of:
  0.04593013 = sum of:
    0.028470935 = weight(_text_:data in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028470935 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
    0.017459193 = product of:
      0.034918386 = sum of:
        0.034918386 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034918386 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, 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=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

Source

Open Password. 2021, Nr.935 vom 16.06.2021 [https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzMwNSwiMjNiZDFkOWY4Nzg5IiwwLDAsMjc1LDFd]

0.009644595 = product of:
  0.08680135 = sum of:
    0.08680135 = weight(_text_:germany in 3562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08680135 = score(doc=3562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.39533097 = fieldWeight in 3562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3562)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

With the start of the new year 2017, about 60 universities and other research institutions in Germany are set to lose subscription access to one of the main STEM publishers, Elsevier. The reason being negotiations of the DEAL consortium (600 institutions in total) with the publisher. In the run-up to these negotiations, all members of the consortium were urged to not renew their individual subscriptions with the publisher and most institutions apparently followed this call. As the first Elsevier offer was rejected by DEAL and further negotiations have been postponed until 2017, the participating institutions whose individual contract runs out this year will be without continued subscription access - as long as they don't cave in and broker new individual contracts. At first, this may seem like a massive problem for all students and faculty at these institutions. However, there are now so many alternative access strategies, that the well-informed scholar may not even notice much of a difference. Here are ten different options, in no particular order.

0.009644595 = product of:
  0.08680135 = sum of:
    0.08680135 = weight(_text_:germany in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08680135 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.39533097 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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. ... "

0.0063268747 = product of:
  0.05694187 = sum of:
    0.05694187 = weight(_text_:data in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05694187 = score(doc=3371,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

After a year of development, the library at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has launched a repository, called the Illinois Data Bank (https://databank.illinois.edu/), to provide Illinois researchers with a free, self-serve publishing platform that centralizes, preserves, and provides persistent and reliable access to Illinois research data. This article presents a holistic view of development by discussing our overarching technical, policy, and interface strategies. By openly presenting our design decisions, the rationales behind those decisions, and associated challenges this paper aims to contribute to the library community's work to develop repository services that meet growing data preservation and sharing needs.

0.0039192108 = product of:
  0.035272896 = sum of:
    0.035272896 = product of:
      0.07054579 = sum of:
        0.07054579 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07054579 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.003615357 = product of:
  0.032538213 = sum of:
    0.032538213 = weight(_text_:data in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032538213 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

https://www.1843magazine.com/data-graphic/what-the-numbers-say/how-long-is-the-perfect-book

0.003615357 = product of:
  0.032538213 = sum of:
    0.032538213 = weight(_text_:data in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032538213 = score(doc=5624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

0.0022170406 = product of:
  0.019953365 = sum of:
    0.019953365 = product of:
      0.03990673 = sum of:
        0.03990673 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03990673 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22

0.0018076785 = product of:
  0.016269106 = sum of:
    0.016269106 = weight(_text_:data in 1198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016269106 = score(doc=1198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 1198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1198)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

To arrive at relevant and reliable conclusions concerning the usability of a hypermedia educational e-book, developers have to apply a well-defined evaluation procedure as well as a set of clear, concrete and measurable quality criteria. Evaluating an educational tool involves not only testing the user interface but also the didactic method, the instructional materials and the interaction mechanisms to prove whether or not they help users reach their goals for learning. This article presents a number of evaluation criteria for hypermedia educational e-books and describes how they are embedded into an evaluation procedure. This work is chiefly aimed at helping education developers evaluate their systems, as well as to provide them with guidance for addressing educational requirements during the design process. In recent years, more and more educational e-books are being created, whether by academics trying to keep pace with the advanced requirements of the virtual university or by publishers seeking to meet the increasing demand for educational resources that can be accessed anywhere and anytime, and that include multimedia information, hypertext links and powerful search and annotating mechanisms. To develop a useful educational e-book many things have to be considered, such as the reading patterns of users, accessibility for different types of users and computer platforms, copyright and legal issues, development of new business models and so on. Addressing usability is very important since e-books are interactive systems and, consequently, have to be designed with the needs of their users in mind. Evaluating usability involves analyzing whether systems are effective, efficient and secure for use; easy to learn and remember; and have a good utility. Any interactive system, as e-books are, has to be assessed to determine if it is really usable as well as useful. Such an evaluation is not only concerned with assessing the user interface but is also aimed at analyzing whether the system can be used in an efficient way to meet the needs of its users - who in the case of educational e-books are learners and teachers. Evaluation provides the opportunity to gather valuable information about design decisions. However, to be successful the evaluation has to be carefully planned and prepared so developers collect appropriate and reliable data from which to draw relevant conclusions.

0.0016627803 = product of:
  0.014965023 = sum of:
    0.014965023 = product of:
      0.029930046 = sum of:
        0.029930046 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029930046 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

1. 1.2020 13:22:34

0.0013856502 = product of:
  0.012470853 = sum of:
    0.012470853 = product of:
      0.024941705 = sum of:
        0.024941705 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024941705 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

22. 1.2018 11:38:55

0.0011085203 = product of:
  0.009976682 = sum of:
    0.009976682 = product of:
      0.019953365 = sum of:
        0.019953365 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019953365 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.