Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.025332842 = product of:
  0.0633321 = sum of:
    0.04195383 = weight(_text_:und in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04195383 = score(doc=252,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.41987535 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
    0.021378273 = product of:
      0.042756546 = sum of:
        0.042756546 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042756546 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1578718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045082662 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Das EconBiz Academic Career Kit ist ein interaktives Online-Tutorial für den wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchs in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften. In drei Modulen geht es um die Themen: erste Veröffentlichung, Open Access, Predatory Journals und Urheberrecht - Wissenschaftskommunikation, kollaboratives Arbeiten, Networking und Metriken - Forschungsdatenmanagement. Angebote der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz sind in diesen Feldern und für diese Zielgruppe in Deutschland noch nicht flächendeckend verbreitet. Darum - und weil Forschende sich zu diesen Fragen meist im Netz informieren - ist das Academic Career Kit als OER unter der Lizenz CC-BY veröffentlicht und damit zur Bearbeitung und Weiterverwendung durch Dritte freigegeben.

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.010285733 = product of:
  0.025714332 = sum of:
    0.006139957 = weight(_text_:information in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006139957 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.019574376 = weight(_text_:und in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019574376 = score(doc=250,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Es handelt sich um eine bibliometrische Untersuchung der Entwicklung der Open-Access-Verfügbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenartikel in Deutschland, die im Zeitraum 2010-18 erschienen und im Web of Science indexiert sind. Ein besonderes Augenmerk der Analyse lag auf der Frage, ob und inwiefern sich die Open-Access-Profile der Universitäten und außeruniversitären Wissenschaftseinrichtungen in Deutschland voneinander unterscheiden.

Content

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

Footnote

Den Aufsatz begleitet ein interaktives Datensupplement, mit dem sich die OA-Anteile auf Ebene der Einrichtung vergleichen lassen. https://subugoe.github.io/oauni/articles/supplement.html. Die Arbeit entstand in Zusammenarbeit der BMBF-Projekte OAUNI und OASE der Förderlinie "Quantitative Wissenschaftsforschung". https://www.wihoforschung.de/de/quantitative-wissenschaftsforschung-1573.php.

0.008390766 = product of:
  0.04195383 = sum of:
    0.04195383 = weight(_text_:und in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04195383 = score(doc=69,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.41987535 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Mit der Etablierung von Open Access als Standardmodell des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens verlagert sich der Fokus von Subskriptions- auf Publikationskosten. Die zuverlässige und vollständige Erfassung dieser Kosten stellt eine große Herausforderung für Bibliotheken und Institutionen dar. Gründe dafür sind dezentrale Rechnungsworkflows, unterschiedliche Kostenmodelle, Nebengebühren, ein Nebeneinander von Einzel- und Pauschalgebühren und die Vermischung von Subskriptions- und Publikationskosten. Der vorliegende Beitrag analysiert zunächst die Vielfalt der unterschiedlichen Ausgaben für Artikel in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften. Im Anschluss zeigt er zwei Ansätze der Erfassung von dezentralen Publikationskosten auf, die zu einer besseren Steuerung und mehr Transparenz der Ausgaben für das Publizieren beitragen.

0.0076596863 = product of:
  0.03829843 = sum of:
    0.03829843 = weight(_text_:und in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03829843 = score(doc=931,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.38329202 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Das wissenschaftliche Publikationssystem ist in seinen Grundzügen nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg entworfen und dann in die einmal eingeschlagene Richtung zum Nachteil der Wissenschaft und ihrer Bibliotheken weiterentwickelt worden. Im Ergebnis ist es inzwischen ein Quasi-Monopol mit allen Folgen für die Wissenschaft und ihre Bibliotheken. Die aktuellen Entwicklungen in Richtung Science Tracking vertiefen diese Monopolbildung noch weiter zu ihren Ungunsten. Der Beitrag zeichnet die Entwicklung zu einem asymmetrischen System des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens nach, analysiert die jüngsten Entwicklungen um das Datentracking über Bibliotheken und diskutiert Auswege aus der bizarren Situation des Publikationssystems.

0.006920587 = product of:
  0.034602933 = sum of:
    0.034602933 = weight(_text_:und in 83) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034602933 = score(doc=83,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 83, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=83)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Die großen Verlage haben ein neues Geschäftsfeld entdeckt: die Überwachung von Wissenschaftlern und den Verkauf ihrer Daten. Sie nehmen dadurch weitreichenden Einfluss auf die Forschung. Die Europäische Union muss dringend eingreifen.

Series

Forschung und Lehre

0.006851032 = product of:
  0.03425516 = sum of:
    0.03425516 = weight(_text_:und in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03425516 = score(doc=5333,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 5333, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5333)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Phishing-Verdacht gegen die Schattenbibliothek. Wieder einmal drohen der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub, die kostenpflichtige Verlagspublikationen wissenschaftlicher Art unter Umgehung des Copyrights kostenlos verbreitet, juristische Widrigkeiten. Bereits 2017 gestand ein New Yorker Gericht Elsevier, neben Wiley und Springer Nature einer der drei größten Wissenschaftsverlage, 15 Millionen US-Dollar Schadensersatz für Urheberrechtsverletzungen zu, basierend auf einer durch Elsevier dem Gericht vorgelegten Liste von 100 Artikeln, die von den Schattenbibliotheken Sci-Hub und LibGen illegal zur Verfügung gestellt wurden. Dieses und andere Urteile ließen sich jedoch mangels Zugriffes auf Sci-Hub und dessen Verantwortliche außerhalb des juristischen Einflussbereiches der USA nicht durchsetzen.

0.006780763 = product of:
  0.033903815 = sum of:
    0.033903815 = weight(_text_:und in 1056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033903815 = score(doc=1056,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 1056, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1056)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Am 23. Mai 2023 formulierte der Rat der Europäischen Union einen Rahmen für das wissenschaftliche Publizieren, der, sollte er umgesetzt werden, das Ende für akademische Verlage und wissenschaftliche Zeitschriften, wie wir sie kennen, bedeutet. Noch am selben Tag unterstützten die größten und einflussreichsten Forschungsorganisationen in Europa - darunter auch die DFG1 - dies durch eine gemeinsame Erklärung. Im Zentrum steht die Schaffung einer "öffentlichen und nicht gewinnorientierten" Infrastruktur für wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen.

0.006565445 = product of:
  0.032827225 = sum of:
    0.032827225 = weight(_text_:und in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032827225 = score(doc=132,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.328536 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Plan S und seine potenziellen Auswirkungen auf die wissenschaftliche Publikationskultur gehören aktuell zu den international intensiv diskutierten Themen, vor allem in der Open-Access-Community, aber auch im Bibliotheksbereich. Der folgende Beitrag greift diese Debatten aus der Sicht der internationalen Forschungsgemeinschaft auf und beleuchtet repräsentativ wichtige Akteure sowie grundlegende Positionen in der Auseinandersetzung mit der Open-Access-Initiative. Er skizziert ihre Entwicklung von der Ankündigung im September 2018 bis zum Erscheinen der überarbeiteten Version Ende Mai 2019 und untersucht, inwiefern die Wortmeldungen von Seiten der Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler sowie von Forschungszusammenschlüssen Eingang in die Überarbeitungen von Plan S fanden. Deren zunehmende Wichtigkeit - vor allem auch im Hinblick auf eine breitere Akzeptanz der Plan-S-Strategie bei den Forschenden - spiegelt sich in mehreren von der cOAlition S initiierten Feedback-Aktionen wider. Als eine der Folgen von Plan S ist somit eine Intensivierung der bereits seit längerem geführten Diskussionen über wissenschaftliche Publikationskulturen zu beobachten, die in zunehmendem Maße auch Bibliotheken als Ansprechpartner für Hochschulen und Wissenschaft fordern werden.

0.004893594 = product of:
  0.02446797 = sum of:
    0.02446797 = weight(_text_:und in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02446797 = score(doc=110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

"Wir wissen, wo Du bist. Wir wissen, wo Du warst. Wir wissen mehr oder weniger, woran Du denkst." - Europa muss die Daten-Allmacht der amerikanischen und chinesischen Tech-Giganten brechen. Ein offener Brief des Vorstandschefs von Axel Springer an die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission.

0.004893594 = product of:
  0.02446797 = sum of:
    0.02446797 = weight(_text_:und in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02446797 = score(doc=393,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Die großen Wissenschaftsverlage sitzen weiter fest im Sattel. An der Qualität ihrer Arbeit kann es nicht liegen: Immer mehr Aufrufe fordern, das kaputte und destruktive Zeitschriftensystem durch zeitgemäße Lösungen zu ersetzen.

0.004511928 = product of:
  0.02255964 = sum of:
    0.02255964 = weight(_text_:information in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02255964 = score(doc=612,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the last decade, one of the most effective tools applied in combating the erosion of public trust in academic research has been an increased level of transparency in the peer review and editorial process. Publicly available publication ethics guidelines and policies are vital in creating a transparent process that prevents unethical research, publication misconduct, manipulation of the communication of research to practitioners, and the erosion of public trust. This study investigated how these unethical practices, specifically those coded as editorial misconduct, bring the authenticity and integrity of the library and information science academic research digital record into question. Employing a multi-layered approach, including key informant interviews, researchers determined the frequency and the content of ethical publishing policies and procedures in library and information science journals; exploring the ways the lack of, or nonadherence to these policies and procedures impacted library and information science researchers in instances of editorial misconduct.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.7, S.913-928

0.003425516 = product of:
  0.01712758 = sum of:
    0.01712758 = weight(_text_:und in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712758 = score(doc=599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 599, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=599)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Es ist ausgezeichnet, dass geisteswissenschaftliche Kernzeitschriften des deutschsprachigen Raums online im Rahmen von Digizeitschriften: http://digizeitschriften.de/ (unsicher!) zur Verfügung stehen. Seit einer gefühlten Ewigkeit bin ich aber ein scharfer Kritiker der Art und Weise, wie das geschieht. Kürzlich hat es offenbar einen Relaunch der Website gegeben, der neben einigen Verbesserungen katastrophale Verschlechterungen für die Nutzer mit sich brachte. Es wäre an der Zeit, dass die zahlenden Nutzer des Angebots, die Institutionen, die eine Masse Geld zahlen müssen, endlich gegen den maßlos schlechten Service rebellieren. Die meisten bisherigen Links führen ins Leere.

0.002604963 = product of:
  0.013024815 = sum of:
    0.013024815 = weight(_text_:information in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013024815 = score(doc=544,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study explores the use of PubPeer by the scholarly community, to understand the issues discussed in an online journal club, the disciplines most commented on, and the characteristics of the most prolific users. A sample of 39,985 posts about 24,779 publications were extracted from PubPeer in 2019 and 2020. These comments were divided into seven categories according to their degree of seriousness (Positive review, Critical review, Lack of information, Honest errors, Methodological flaws, Publishing fraud, and Manipulation). The results show that more than two-thirds of comments are posted to report some type of misconduct, mainly about image manipulation. These comments generate most discussion and take longer to be posted. By discipline, Health Sciences and Life Sciences are the most discussed research areas. The results also reveal "super commenters," users who access the platform to systematically review publications. The study ends by discussing how various disciplines use the site for different purposes.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.655-670

0.0021708026 = product of:
  0.010854012 = sum of:
    0.010854012 = weight(_text_:information in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010854012 = score(doc=410,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow-up retractions. No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2-fold. First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar-based computer-generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen-papers from 19 publishers. We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen-papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34). Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references. It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer-review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.12, S.1461-1476

0.0021708026 = product of:
  0.010854012 = sum of:
    0.010854012 = weight(_text_:information in 460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010854012 = score(doc=460,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 460, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=460)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Although digital humanities (DH) has received a lot of attention in recent years, its status as "a discipline in its own right" (Schreibman et al., A companion to digital humanities (pp. xxiii-xxvii). Blackwell; 2004) and its position in the overall academic landscape are still being negotiated. While there are countless essays and opinion pieces that debate the status of DH, little research has been dedicated to exploring the field in a systematic and empirical way (Poole, Journal of Documentation; 2017:73). This study aims to contribute to the existing research gap by comparing articles published over the past three decades in three established English-language DH journals (Computers and the Humanities, Literary and Linguistic Computing, Digital Humanities Quarterly) with research articles from journals in 15 other academic disciplines (corpus size: 34,041 articles; 299 million tokens). As a method of analysis, we use latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling, combined with recent approaches that aggregate topic models by means of hierarchical agglomerative clustering. Our findings indicate that DH is simultaneously a discipline in its own right and a highly interdisciplinary field, with many connecting factors to neighboring disciplines-first and foremost, computational linguistics, and information science. Detailed descriptive analyses shed some light on the diachronic development of DH and also highlight topics that are characteristic for DH.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.148-171

0.0018419871 = product of:
  0.009209936 = sum of:
    0.009209936 = weight(_text_:information in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009209936 = score(doc=37,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.12, S.1500-1504

0.0017366421 = product of:
  0.00868321 = sum of:
    0.00868321 = weight(_text_:information in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00868321 = score(doc=462,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 462, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=462)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

More than 15 years ago, A Companion to Digital Humanities marked out the area of digital humanities (DH) "as a discipline in its own right" (Schreibman et al., 2004, p. xxiii). In the years that followed, there is ample evidence that the DH domain, formed by the intersection of humanities disciplines and digital information technology, has undergone remarkable expansion. This growth is reflected in A New Companion to Digital Humanities (Schreibman et al., 2016). The extensively revised contents of the second edition were contributed by a global team of authors who are pioneers of innovative research in the field. Over this formative period, DH has become a widely recognized, impactful mode of scholarship and an institutional unit for collaborative, transdisciplinary, and computationally engaged research, teaching, and publication (Burdick et al., 2012; Svensson, 2010; Van Ruyskensvelde, 2014). The field of DH has advanced tremendously over the last decade and continues to expand. Meanwhile, competing definitions and approaches of DH scholars continue to spark debate. "Complexity" was a theme of the DH2019 international conference, as it demonstrates the multifaceted connections within DH scholarship today (Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations, 2019). Yet, while it is often assumed that the DH is in flux and not particularly fixed as an institutional or intellectual construct, there are also obviously touchstones within the DH field, most visibly in the relationship between traditional humanities disciplines and technological infrastructures. Thus, it is still meaningful to "bring together the humanistic and the digital through embracing a non-territorial and liminal zone" (Svensson, 2016, p. 477). This is the focus of this JASIST special issue, which mirrors the increasing attention on DH worldwide.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.143-147

0.0015349891 = product of:
  0.0076749455 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 5677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=5677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5677)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.3, S.338-348

0.0015349891 = product of:
  0.0076749455 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.7, S.856-866

0.0015349891 = product of:
  0.0076749455 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 5961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=5961,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5961, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5961)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.10, S.1218-1226