Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. 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) 0.10 
    0.103954405 = product of:
  0.13860588 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.037512034 = weight(_text_:library in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037512034 = score(doc=3608,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28463858 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.06662838 = sum of:
      0.039465316 = weight(_text_:project in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039465316 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.18654276 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027163066 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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.
  2. Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011) 0.06 
    0.06411778 = product of:
  0.12823556 = sum of:
    0.10446788 = weight(_text_:digital in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10446788 = score(doc=4198,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.5283983 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:23:07
  3. Ferro, N.; Silvello, G.: NESTOR: a formal model for digital archives (2013) 0.05 
    0.05084595 = product of:
  0.1016919 = sum of:
    0.07461992 = weight(_text_:digital in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07461992 = score(doc=2707,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=2707,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Archives are an extremely valuable part of our cultural heritage since they represent the trace of the activities of a physical or juridical person in the course of their business. Despite their importance, the models and technologies that have been developed over the past two decades in the Digital Library (DL) field have not been specifically tailored to archives. This is especially true when it comes to formal and foundational frameworks, as the Streams, Structures, Spaces, Scenarios, Societies (5S) model is. Therefore, we propose an innovative formal model, called NEsted SeTs for Object hieRarchies (NESTOR), for archives, explicitly built around the concepts of context and hierarchy which play a central role in the archival realm. NESTOR is composed of two set-based data models: the Nested Sets Model (NS-M) and the Inverse Nested Sets Model (INS-M) that express the hierarchical relationships between objects through the inclusion property between sets. We formally study the properties of these models and prove their equivalence with the notion of hierarchy entailed by archives. We then use NESTOR to extend the 5S model in order to take into account the specific features of archives and to tailor the notion of digital library accordingly. This offers the possibility of opening up the full wealth of DL methods and technologies to archives. We demonstrate the impact of NESTOR on this problem through three example use cases.
  4. Schmale, W.: Strategische Optionen für universitäre Repositorien in den Digital Humanities (2018) 0.04 
    0.042041123 = product of:
  0.084082246 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 3909, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3909)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    20. 9.2018 12:22:39
  5. Geschuhn, K.; Sikora, A.: Management von Article Processing Charges : Herausforderungen für Bibliotheken (2015) 0.04 
    0.037334766 = product of:
  0.07466953 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 2147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=2147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2147, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2147)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=2147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2147, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2147)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Seit mehreren Jahren betreiben Hochschulbibliotheken Publikationsfonds, um Open-Access-Artikelgebühren, Article Processing Charges, für die Autorinnen und Autoren ihrer Einrichtungen zu übernehmen. Der dynamische Anstieg der Open-Access-Publikationen in den letzten Jahren wirft die Frage auf, ob die derzeitigen Verfahren zwischen Verlagen und wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen stabil genug sind und bei einer vollständigen Umstellung auf Open Access skalieren. Die Max Planck Digital Library übernimmt derzeit jährlich zentral Gebühren für etwa 600 Open-Access-Artikel aus der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über die strategischen Hintergründe dieser zentralen Kostenübernahme und zeigt anschließend die einzelnen Prozessschritte sowie die Hürden hierbei auf. Die größten Desiderate im Hinblick auf die Etablierung effizienter und nachhaltiger Prozesse sind optimierte Artikel-Einreichungssysteme, eine bessere Autorenidentifizierung sowie ein vereinheitlichtes, verbessertes Reporting.
  6. Cabanac, G.: Bibliogifts in LibGen? : a study of a text-sharing platform driven by biblioleaks and crowdsourcing (2016) 0.03 
    0.031112304 = product of:
  0.062224608 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 2850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=2850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 2850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2850)
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 2850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=2850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2850)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  7. Stäcker, T.: Wie schreibt man Digital Humanities richtig? : Überlegungen zum wissenschaftlichen Publizieren im digitalen Zeitalter (2013) 0.02 
    0.022385975 = product of:
  0.0895439 = sum of:
    0.0895439 = weight(_text_:digital in 739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0895439 = score(doc=739,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4529128 = fieldWeight in 739, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=739)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die Digital Humanities sind in aller Munde. Die Beschäftigung mit den digitalen Geisteswissenschaften eröffnet aber nicht nur neue Forschungsgebiete, sondern bringt auch eine neue Art zu schreiben mit sich, weil wissenschaftliche Publikationen selbst Gegenstände der digital humanities sind. Elektronische Publikationen, die im Internet erscheinen, müssen, anders als ihre gedruckten Vorgänger dem Umstand Rechnung tragen, dass man sie nicht nur lesen, sondern maschinell bearbeiten kann. Das hat beträchtliche Auswirkungen auf die Texte, mit denen sich auf diese Weise neue Funktionen verbinden, aber auch auf das akademische Publikationswesen, das sich auf gewandelte Produktions- und Distributionsbedingungen einstellen muss. Der erste Teil des Beitrages widmet sich dieser neuen Art zu schreiben, indem er die technischen und formalen Voraussetzungen für elektronische Publikationen analysiert. Der zweite Teil versucht unter der Überschrift "Open Access - Open Source" die Anforderungen und Auswirkungen elektronischen Publizierens auf das akademische Publizieren im Ganzen auszuloten.
  8. Taglinger, H.: Ausgevogelt, jetzt wird es ernst (2018) 0.02 
    0.022024449 = product of:
  0.044048898 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=4281,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Das kennt der Sammler: Da fängt man an, sich für eine Sache zu interessieren und alles darüber zusammenzutragen, was man kriegen kann, und dann hat man sich verhoben, weil man die Sache ein wenig zu groß angegangen ist. So ist es zum Beispiel blöd, in der Wüste zu sitzen und sich zu überlegen, alle Kiefernnadeln weltweit zusammentragen zu wollen, weil das ja von dort aus gesehen nicht so viele sein können. Und dann beginnt man nach einiger Zeit diese Website über die Kiefernwälder weltweit zu finden und sich am Kopf zu kratzen. Also beschließt man nur noch "herausragende Kiefernnadeln" zu sammeln, was immer das sein mag. Aber auf jeden Fall hat man es satt, jeden Tag mehrere Tausend Säcke Bioabfall von schwitzenden Postboten vor die Tore gestellt zu bekommen. So ähnlich muss es der Library of Congress gehen, wenn sie im Dezember 2017 genau das beschließt. Also, nicht wirklich das Sammeln von Kiefernnadeln einzustellen. Vielmehr handelt es sich ja um die umfangreichste Bibliothek der Welt, die alle möglichen Inhalte in Büchern, auf Tonbändern und eben auch Tweets sammelt. Das ist ihr jetzt zu viel geworden. Kann man verstehen, kommen wir ja schon mit dem Lesen von Tweets eines kleinhändigen Präsidenten kaum noch nach, dann muss es da draußen ja auch noch eine ganze Menge anderes Zeugs geben. Die armen Bibliothekare in den dortigen Kellern weinen ja schon, wenn sie wieder tonnenweise kommentierte Retweets und diesen Mist auf den Tisch bekamen, alleine das Ausdrucken von bis zu 280 Zeichen und Bildern dauert ja ewig ... ganz zu schweigen vom Einsortieren.
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:38:55
    Object
    Library of Congress
  9. Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019) 0.02 
    0.021671817 = product of:
  0.043343633 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    1. 1.2020 13:22:34
    Source
    LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.36, 2019
  10. Lozano, G.A.; Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.: ¬The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age (2012) 0.02 
    0.01865498 = product of:
  0.07461992 = sum of:
    0.07461992 = weight(_text_:digital in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07461992 = score(doc=486,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.
  11. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.02 
    0.01805985 = product of:
  0.0361197 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  12. Avni, O.; Steinebach, M.: Digitale Wasserzeichen für textuelle Informationen (2010) 0.02 
    0.017232731 = product of:
  0.068930924 = sum of:
    0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 2811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068930924 = score(doc=2811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 2811, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2811)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Digitale Wasserzeichen finden heute vielfältige Anwendungen im Bereich Multimedia, und insbesondere im Schutz der Urheberrechte eine Alternative zum Digital Rights Manangement aufgezeigt. Was allerdings für Bilder, Musik und Videos heute etabliert ist, stellt die Forschung im Bereich textueller Dokumente noch vor Herausforderungen. Wir stellen verschiedene bekannte Strategien vor, Dokumente individuell zu markieren, entweder durch Veränderung der Formatierung oder das Modifizieren des Textes selbst. Zu letztgenanntem Ansatz liefern wir eigene Ansätze, die die wenigen Freiheitsgrade der deutschen Sprache ausnutzen.
  13. 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 
    0.017232731 = product of:
  0.068930924 = sum of:
    0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068930924 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  14. Martin, K.; Quan-Haase, A.: Are e-books replacing print books? : tradition, serendipity, and opportunity in the adoption and use of e-books for historical research and teaching (2013) 0.02 
    0.015231727 = product of:
  0.060926907 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=748,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 748, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=748)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This article aims to understand the adoption of e-books by academic historians for the purpose of teaching and research. This includes an investigation into their knowledge about and perceived characteristics of this evolving research tool. The study relied on Rogers's model of the innovation-decision process to guide the development of an interview guide. Ten semistructured interviews were conducted with history faculty between October 2010 and December 2011. A grounded theory approach was employed to code and analyze the data. Findings about tradition, cost, teaching innovations, and the historical research process provide the background for designing learning opportunities for the professional development of historians and the academic librarians who work with them. While historians are open to experimenting with e-books, they are also concerned about the loss of serendipity in digital environments, the lack of availability of key resources, and the need for technological transparency. The findings show that Rogers's knowledge and persuasion stages are cyclical in nature, with scholars moving back and forth between these two stages. Participants interviewed were already weighing the five characteristics of the persuasion stage without having much knowledge about e-books. The study findings have implications for our understanding of the diffusion of innovations in academia: both print and digital collections are being used in parallel without one replacing the other.
  15. Bias, R.G.; Larson, K.; Huang, S.-C.; Aumer-Ryan, P.R.; Montesclaros, C.: ¬An exploratory study of visual and psychological correlates of preference for onscreen subpixel-rendered text (2010) 0.01 
    0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 3438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=3438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3438)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Font-rendering technologies play a critical role in presenting clear and aesthetic fonts to enhance the experience of reading from computer screens. This article presents three studies investigating visual and psychological correlates of people's preferences toward different onscreen text enhancements such as ClearType developed by Microsoft. Findings suggested that (a) people's acuity and hue sensitivity were two major factors that affect their preferences to ClearType's color filtering of subpixels on fonts, and (b) specific personality traits such as disagreeableness also could correlate with people's impressions of different onscreen text enhancements that were used. These empirical data would inform digital typographers and human-computer interaction scientists who aim to develop better systems of onscreen reading.
  16. Rodrigues, R.S.; Abadal, E.: Scientific journals in Brazil and Spain : alternative publishing models (2014) 0.01 
    0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 1504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=1504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 1504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1504)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper describes high-quality journals in Brazil and Spain, with an emphasis on the distribution models used. It presents the general characteristics (age, type of publisher, and theme) and analyzes the distribution model by studying the type of format (print or digital), the type of access (open access or subscription), and the technology platform used. The 549 journals analyzed (249 in Brazil and 300 in Spain) are included in the 2011 Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Data on each journal were collected directly from their websites between March and October 2012. Brazil has a fully open access distribution model (97%) in which few journals require payment by authors thanks to cultural, financial, operational, and technological support provided by public agencies. In Spain, open access journals account for 55% of the total and have also received support from public agencies, although to a lesser extent. These results show that there are systems support of open access in scientific journals other than the "author pays" model advocated by the Finch report for the United Kingdom.
  17. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.01 
    0.012004493 = product of:
  0.04801797 = sum of:
    0.04801797 = product of:
      0.09603594 = sum of:
        0.09603594 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09603594 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
  18. Brown, D.J.: Repositories and journals: are they in conflict? : a literature review of relevant literature (2010) 0.01 
    0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=3954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to bring together information on whether any evidence exists of a commercial conflict between the creation of digital archives at research institutions and by key subject centres of excellence, and the business of journal publishing. Design/methodology/approach - Relevant publications, including articles published in refereed books and journals, as well as informal commentaries on listservs, blogs and wikis, were analysed to determine whether there is any evidence of a commercial relationship. Findings - Most of the published comments are highly subjective and anecdotal - there is a significant emotional overtone to many of the views expressed. There is precious little hard evidence currently available to support or debunk the idea that a commercial conflict exists between repositories and journal subscriptions. The situation is made more difficult by the many technological, sociological and administrative changes that are taking place in parallel to the establishment of repositories. Practical implications - Separating the key drivers and their impact is a major strategic challenge facing all stakeholders in the scholarly communication industry in future. Research limitations/implications - This is an important area which requires close monitoring - the possible threat that the established journal publishing system could be eroded away by a new "free" scholarly information system needs attention. One significant study in this area is being undertaken by the PEER group, funded by the European Commission with hard evidence being collected by UCL's CIBER research group. The results from this impartial investigation will be very welcome. Originality/value - The paper shows that relationship between repositories and journal subscriptions is vague.
  19. Zahedi, Z.; Costas, R.; Wouters, P.: Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications (2017) 0.01 
    0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study presents a large-scale analysis of the distribution and presence of Mendeley readership scores over time and across disciplines. We study whether Mendeley readership scores (RS) can identify highly cited publications more effectively than journal citation scores (JCS). Web of Science (WoS) publications with digital object identifiers (DOIs) published during the period 2004-2013 and across five major scientific fields were analyzed. The main result of this study shows that RS are more effective (in terms of precision/recall values) than JCS to identify highly cited publications across all fields of science and publication years. The findings also show that 86.5% of all the publications are covered by Mendeley and have at least one reader. Also, the share of publications with Mendeley RS is increasing from 84% in 2004 to 89% in 2009, and decreasing from 88% in 2010 to 82% in 2013. However, it is noted that publications from 2010 onwards exhibit on average a higher density of readership versus citation scores. This indicates that compared to citation scores, RS are more prevalent for recent publications and hence they could work as an early indicator of research impact. These findings highlight the potential and value of Mendeley as a tool for scientometric purposes and particularly as a relevant tool to identify highly cited publications.
  20. Loos, A.: ¬Die Million ist geknackt (2015) 0.01 
    0.01018615 = product of:
  0.0407446 = sum of:
    0.0407446 = product of:
      0.0814892 = sum of:
        0.0814892 = weight(_text_:22 in 4208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0814892 = score(doc=4208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    7. 4.2015 17:22:03

Authors

Languages

  • e 24
  • d 13

Themes