-
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)
0.02
0.021134451 = product of:
0.06340335 = sum of:
0.06340335 = product of:
0.09510502 = sum of:
0.04685821 = weight(_text_:science in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04685821 = score(doc=2986,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
0.048246812 = weight(_text_:29 in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048246812 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 6. 6.2016 10:29:10
- 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
-
Schmale, W.: Strategische Optionen für universitäre Repositorien in den Digital Humanities (2018)
0.02
0.01867826 = product of:
0.056034774 = sum of:
0.056034774 = product of:
0.08405216 = sum of:
0.04221596 = weight(_text_:29 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04221596 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3909, 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=3909)
0.0418362 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0418362 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3909, 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=3909)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 9.2018 12:22:39
- Source
- Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 70(2018) H.1, S.21-29
-
Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011)
0.01
0.014557356 = product of:
0.043672066 = sum of:
0.043672066 = product of:
0.0655081 = sum of:
0.023671897 = weight(_text_:science in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023671897 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
0.0418362 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0418362 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Münch, V.: They have a dream (2019)
0.01
0.014345395 = product of:
0.043036185 = sum of:
0.043036185 = product of:
0.064554274 = sum of:
0.028694674 = weight(_text_:science in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028694674 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
0.0358596 = weight(_text_:22 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0358596 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5631, 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=5631)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler propagieren die demokratische dezentrale Selbstorganisation der globalen Wissenschaftskommunikation als Blockchain. Bericht über die "1st international Conference on Blockchain for Science, Research and Knowledge Creation", Berlin, 5. und 6. November 2018. Sie wollen die Wissenschaftskommunikation und ihr Publikationswesen revolutionieren. Der Wissensaustausch soll ohne Barrieren fließen. Forschende sollen ihre Datensammlungen, Zwischenergebnisse und Fragen von Beginn des Forschungsprozesses an urheberrechtssicher direkt publizieren und diskutieren können; auch Fehlversuche und negative Ergebnisse. Sie haben ganz viel Enthusiasmus, frische Ideen und mit Blockchain ein neuartiges Datenverarbeitungskonzept, das mit dem bestehenden Internet als Transportfundament den weltweiten Datenverkehr unabhängig von zentralen Unternehmensplattformen möglich macht (zumindest technisch). Dieser kryptogesicherten Blockdatenverarbeitung mit verteilten Transaktionsregistern (sorry, es geht nicht kürzer) schreiben sie das Potential zu, in einem autonom geführten Netzwerk, in dem alle Teilnehmenden gleichberechtigt sind und miteinander agieren können, der Wissenschaft die Hoheit über ihren weltweiten Informationsaustausch geben zu können. Die Rede ist von der "Blockchain One Community", Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler aus verschiedenen Disziplinen und Ländern, die sich für eine "Blockchain for Science" engagieren. Die Kühnsten unter ihnen streben eine weltweite Wissenschaftskommunikation in demokratischer Selbstorganisation an. Blockchains nutzen kann, wer einen Internetzugang hat.
- Source
- B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.1, S.25-39
-
Vincent-Lamarre, P.; Boivin, J.; Gargouri, Y.; Larivière, V.; Harnad, S.: Estimating open access mandate effectiveness : the MELIBEA score (2016)
0.01
0.012014776 = product of:
0.036044326 = sum of:
0.036044326 = product of:
0.054066487 = sum of:
0.023912227 = weight(_text_:science in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023912227 = score(doc=3162,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
0.030154258 = weight(_text_:29 in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030154258 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- MELIBEA is a directory of institutional open-access policies for research output that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the "strength" of open access (OA) mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed total Web of Science-(WoS)-indexed publication output in years 2011-2013 for 67 institutions in which OA was mandated to estimate the mandates' effectiveness: How well did the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of the WoS-indexed articles is actually deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when? We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between the MELIBEA "strength" score and deposit percentage. For three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or latency ([a] immediate deposit required; [b] deposit required for performance evaluation; [c] unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power for mandate effectiveness doubled (0.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but the present findings already suggest that it would be productive for existing and future mandates to adopt the three identified conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.
- Date
- 18.10.2016 14:29:07
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.11, S.2815-2828
-
Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011)
0.01
0.011954496 = product of:
0.035863485 = sum of:
0.035863485 = product of:
0.053795226 = sum of:
0.023912227 = weight(_text_:science in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023912227 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.029883001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029883001 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.011954496 = product of:
0.035863485 = sum of:
0.035863485 = product of:
0.053795226 = sum of:
0.023912227 = weight(_text_:science in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023912227 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
0.029883001 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029883001 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
- Social Science Research Network
-
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
0.010519002 = product of:
0.031557005 = sum of:
0.031557005 = product of:
0.047335505 = sum of:
0.023429105 = weight(_text_:science in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023429105 = score(doc=4051,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.20163277 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
0.0239064 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0239064 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
- Footnote
- Beitrag eines Special issue on "The reward system of science".
-
Solomon, D.J.; Björk, B.-C.: Publication fees in open access publishing : sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal (2012)
0.01
0.01045839 = product of:
0.03137517 = sum of:
0.03137517 = product of:
0.047062755 = sum of:
0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016908498 = score(doc=754,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
0.030154258 = weight(_text_:29 in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030154258 = score(doc=754,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 4.2013 18:29:36
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.98-107
-
Björk, B.-C.; Laakso, M.; Welling, P.; Paetau, P.: Anatomy of green open access (2014)
0.01
0.01045839 = product of:
0.03137517 = sum of:
0.03137517 = product of:
0.047062755 = sum of:
0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016908498 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
0.030154258 = weight(_text_:29 in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030154258 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 16:10:46
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.237-250
-
Cabanac, G.: Bibliogifts in LibGen? : a study of a text-sharing platform driven by biblioleaks and crowdsourcing (2016)
0.01
0.01045839 = product of:
0.03137517 = sum of:
0.03137517 = product of:
0.047062755 = sum of:
0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 2850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016908498 = score(doc=2850,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2850, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2850)
0.030154258 = weight(_text_:29 in 2850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030154258 = score(doc=2850,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2850, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2850)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Research articles disseminate the knowledge produced by the scientific community. Access to this literature is crucial for researchers and the general public. Apparently, "bibliogifts" are available online for free from text-sharing platforms. However, little is known about such platforms. What is the size of the underlying digital libraries? What are the topics covered? Where do these documents originally come from? This article reports on a study of the Library Genesis platform (LibGen). The 25 million documents (42 terabytes) it hosts and distributes for free are mostly research articles, textbooks, and books in English. The article collection stems from isolated, but massive, article uploads (71%) in line with a "biblioleaks" scenario, as well as from daily crowdsourcing (29%) by worldwide users of platforms such as Reddit Scholar and Sci-Hub. By relating the DOIs registered at CrossRef and those cached at LibGen, this study reveals that 36% of all DOI articles are available for free at LibGen. This figure is even higher (68%) for three major publishers: Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley. More research is needed to understand to what extent researchers and the general public have recourse to such text-sharing platforms and why.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.874-884
-
Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016)
0.01
0.010398112 = product of:
0.031194335 = sum of:
0.031194335 = product of:
0.0467915 = sum of:
0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016908498 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
0.029883001 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029883001 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:11:17
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431
-
Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017)
0.01
0.009391321 = product of:
0.02817396 = sum of:
0.02817396 = product of:
0.08452188 = sum of:
0.08452188 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08452188 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38
-
Herb, U.: Überwachungskapitalismus und Wissenschaftssteuerung (2019)
0.01
0.0092851035 = product of:
0.02785531 = sum of:
0.02785531 = product of:
0.08356593 = sum of:
0.08356593 = weight(_text_:29 in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08356593 = score(doc=5624,freq=6.0), product of:
0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.5385337 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 29. 6.2019 17:46:17
4. 8.2019 19:52:29
- Issue
- [29. Juli 2019].
-
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)
0.01
0.008318489 = product of:
0.024955466 = sum of:
0.024955466 = product of:
0.0374332 = sum of:
0.013526798 = weight(_text_:science in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013526798 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
0.0239064 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0239064 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Moebius, R.: ¬Die Zitiercommunity (2019)
0.01
0.008041136 = product of:
0.024123406 = sum of:
0.024123406 = product of:
0.072370216 = sum of:
0.072370216 = weight(_text_:29 in 5727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.072370216 = score(doc=5727,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 5727, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5727)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 1. 4.2019 10:29:34
-
Loos, A.: ¬Die Million ist geknackt (2015)
0.01
0.0079688 = product of:
0.0239064 = sum of:
0.0239064 = product of:
0.0717192 = sum of:
0.0717192 = weight(_text_:22 in 4208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0717192 = score(doc=4208,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4208, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4208)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 7. 4.2015 17:22:03
-
Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017)
0.01
0.0053125336 = product of:
0.0159376 = sum of:
0.0159376 = product of:
0.0478128 = sum of:
0.0478128 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0478128 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 9.10.2017 15:48:22
-
Academic publishing : No peeking (2014)
0.01
0.005260422 = product of:
0.015781265 = sum of:
0.015781265 = product of:
0.047343794 = sum of:
0.047343794 = weight(_text_:science in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047343794 = score(doc=805,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Series
- Science and technology
-
Ergül, A.; Böhm, A.; Schmidt, E.; Hissen, S.; Sariklis, T.: Erfolgsfaktoren für die Durchsetzung von PDF/A als weltweiter Standard für elektronische Langzeitarchivierung (2012)
0.00
0.004690662 = product of:
0.014071986 = sum of:
0.014071986 = product of:
0.04221596 = sum of:
0.04221596 = weight(_text_:29 in 4794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04221596 = score(doc=4794,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.044112243 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4794, 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=4794)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 12. 1.2013 18:29:53
