-
Zhang, Y.; Kudva, S.: E-books versus print books : readers' choices and preferences across contexts (2014)
0.02
0.022482082 = product of:
0.08992833 = sum of:
0.08992833 = weight(_text_:frequency in 1335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08992833 = score(doc=1335,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = queryNorm
0.32531026 = fieldWeight in 1335, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1335)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- With electronic book (e-book) sales and readership rising, are e-books positioned to replace print books? This study examines the preference for e-books and print books in the contexts of reading purpose, reading situation, and contextual variables such as age, gender, education level, race/ethnicity, income, community type, and Internet use. In addition, this study aims to identify factors that contribute to e-book adoption. Participants were a nationally representative sample of 2,986 people in the United States from the Reading Habits Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project (http://pewinternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2011/December-2011--Reading-Habits.aspx). While the results of this study support the notion that e-books have firmly established a place in people's lives, due to their convenience of access, e-books are not yet positioned to replace print books. Both print books and e-books have unique attributes and serve irreplaceable functions to meet people's reading needs, which may vary by individual demographic, contextual, and situational factors. At this point, the leading significant predictors of e-book adoption are the number of books read, the individual's income, the occurrence and frequency of reading for research topics of interest, and the individual's Internet use, followed by other variables such as race/ethnicity, reading for work/school, age, and education.
-
Björk, B.-C.; Laakso, M.; Welling, P.; Paetau, P.: Anatomy of green open access (2014)
0.01
0.014115169 = product of:
0.056460675 = sum of:
0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056460675 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = queryNorm
0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Open access (OA) is free, unrestricted access to electronic versions of scholarly publications. For peer-reviewed journal articles, there are two main routes to OA: publishing in OA journals (gold OA) or archiving of article copies or manuscripts at other web locations (green OA). This study focuses on summarizing and extending current knowledge about green OA. A synthesis of previous studies indicates that green OA coverage of all published journal articles is approximately 12%, with substantial disciplinary variation. Typically, green OA copies become available after considerable time delays, partly caused by publisher-imposed embargo periods, and partly by author tendencies to archive manuscripts only periodically. Although green OA copies should ideally be archived in proper repositories, a large share is stored on home pages and similar locations, with no assurance of long-term preservation. Often such locations contain exact copies of published articles, which may infringe on the publisher's exclusive rights. The technical foundation for green OA uploading is becoming increasingly solid largely due to the rapid increase in the number of institutional repositories. The number of articles within the scope of OA mandates, which strongly influence the self-archival rate of articles, is nevertheless still low.
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: SlideShare presentations, citations, users, and trends : a professional site with academic and educational uses (2017)
0.01
0.014115169 = product of:
0.056460675 = sum of:
0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056460675 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = queryNorm
0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.
-
Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016)
0.01
0.012111973 = product of:
0.024223946 = sum of:
0.008323434 = product of:
0.033293735 = sum of:
0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033293735 = score(doc=2646,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = queryNorm
0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.015900511 = product of:
0.031801023 = sum of:
0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031801023 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:11:17
-
Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017)
0.01
0.011243358 = product of:
0.044973433 = sum of:
0.044973433 = product of:
0.089946866 = sum of:
0.089946866 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.089946866 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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
-
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
0.009689578 = product of:
0.019379156 = sum of:
0.0066587473 = product of:
0.02663499 = sum of:
0.02663499 = weight(_text_:based in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02663499 = score(doc=4631,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = queryNorm
0.18831211 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.012720408 = product of:
0.025440816 = sum of:
0.025440816 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025440816 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Loos, A.: ¬Die Million ist geknackt (2015)
0.01
0.0095403055 = product of:
0.038161222 = sum of:
0.038161222 = product of:
0.076322444 = sum of:
0.076322444 = weight(_text_:22 in 4208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.076322444 = score(doc=4208,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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
-
Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017)
0.01
0.006360204 = product of:
0.025440816 = sum of:
0.025440816 = product of:
0.05088163 = sum of:
0.05088163 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05088163 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 9.10.2017 15:48:22
-
Müller, S.: Schattenbibliotheken : Welche Auswirkungen haben Sci-Hub und Co. auf Verlage und Bibliotheken? (2019)
0.01
0.0055651786 = product of:
0.022260714 = sum of:
0.022260714 = product of:
0.04452143 = sum of:
0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04452143 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 765, 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=765)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.5, S.397-404
-
Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011)
0.01
0.0055651786 = product of:
0.022260714 = sum of:
0.022260714 = product of:
0.04452143 = sum of:
0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04452143 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:23:07
-
Schmale, W.: Strategische Optionen für universitäre Repositorien in den Digital Humanities (2018)
0.01
0.0055651786 = product of:
0.022260714 = sum of:
0.022260714 = product of:
0.04452143 = sum of:
0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04452143 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 9.2018 12:22:39
-
Hrachovec, H.: Offen gesagt: Beschwerden eines Archivars (2018)
0.01
0.0055651786 = product of:
0.022260714 = sum of:
0.022260714 = product of:
0.04452143 = sum of:
0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 4443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04452143 = score(doc=4443,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4443, 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=4443)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 9.2018 12:22:52
-
Münch, V.: They have a dream (2019)
0.00
0.0047701527 = product of:
0.019080611 = sum of:
0.019080611 = product of:
0.038161222 = sum of:
0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038161222 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.1, S.25-39
-
Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019)
0.00
0.0047701527 = product of:
0.019080611 = sum of:
0.019080611 = product of:
0.038161222 = sum of:
0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038161222 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 1. 1.2020 13:22:34
-
Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011)
0.00
0.003975128 = product of:
0.015900511 = sum of:
0.015900511 = product of:
0.031801023 = sum of:
0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031801023 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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.
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.00
0.003975128 = product of:
0.015900511 = sum of:
0.015900511 = product of:
0.031801023 = sum of:
0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031801023 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Taglinger, H.: Ausgevogelt, jetzt wird es ernst (2018)
0.00
0.003975128 = product of:
0.015900511 = sum of:
0.015900511 = product of:
0.031801023 = sum of:
0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031801023 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 1.2018 11:38:55
-
Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017)
0.00
0.003975128 = product of:
0.015900511 = sum of:
0.015900511 = product of:
0.031801023 = sum of:
0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031801023 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Somers, J.: Torching the modern-day library of Alexandria : somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them. (2017)
0.00
0.003180102 = product of:
0.012720408 = sum of:
0.012720408 = product of:
0.025440816 = sum of:
0.025440816 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025440816 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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.
-
Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017)
0.00
0.003180102 = product of:
0.012720408 = sum of:
0.012720408 = product of:
0.025440816 = sum of:
0.025440816 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025440816 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04694356 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
