Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Moore, S.A.: Revisiting "the 1990s debutante" : scholar-led publishing and the prehistory of the open access movement (2020) 0.01 
    0.01045839 = product of:
  0.03137517 = sum of:
    0.03137517 = product of:
      0.047062755 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
        0.030154258 = weight(_text_:29 in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030154258 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    11. 7.2020 13:29:13
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.7, S.856-866
  2. Jahn, N.; Matthias, L.; Laakso, M.: Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher-provided metadata : an article-level study of Elsevier (2022) 0.01 
    0.01045839 = product of:
  0.03137517 = sum of:
    0.03137517 = product of:
      0.047062755 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=448,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
        0.030154258 = weight(_text_:29 in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030154258 = score(doc=448,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    16.12.2021 18:29:30
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.1, S.104-118
  3. Ming, W.; Zhao, Z.: Rethinking the open access citation advantage : evidence from the "reverse-flipping" journals (2022) 0.01 
    0.01045839 = product of:
  0.03137517 = sum of:
    0.03137517 = product of:
      0.047062755 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 750, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=750)
        0.030154258 = weight(_text_:29 in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030154258 = score(doc=750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 750, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=750)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    15.10.2022 19:29:06
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.11, S.1608-1620
  4. Santos Green, L.; Johnston, M.P.: ¬A contextualization of editorial misconduct in the library and information science academic information ecosystem (2022) 0.01 
    0.0050411406 = product of:
  0.015123421 = sum of:
    0.015123421 = product of:
      0.045370262 = sum of:
        0.045370262 = weight(_text_:science in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045370262 = score(doc=612,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  5. Herb, U.: Sci-hub = Spy-Hub? (2020) 0.00 
    0.004690662 = product of:
  0.014071986 = sum of:
    0.014071986 = product of:
      0.04221596 = sum of:
        0.04221596 = weight(_text_:29 in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04221596 = score(doc=5333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5333)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    29. 6.2019 17:46:17
  6. Krüger, N.; Pianos, T.: Lernmaterialien für junge Forschende in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften als Open Educational Resources (OER) (2021) 0.00 
    0.0046484666 = product of:
  0.0139454 = sum of:
    0.0139454 = product of:
      0.0418362 = sum of:
        0.0418362 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0418362 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
  7. Buehling, K.; Geissler, M.; Strecker, D.: Free access to scientific literature and its influence on the publishing activity in developing countries : the effect of Sci-Hub in the field of mathematics (2022) 0.00 
    0.0032540425 = product of:
  0.009762127 = sum of:
    0.009762127 = product of:
      0.029286379 = sum of:
        0.029286379 = weight(_text_:science in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029286379 = score(doc=647,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper investigates whether free access to scientific literature increases the participation of under-represented groups in scientific discourse. To this end, we aggregate and match data tracing access to Sci-Hub, a widely used black open access (OA) repository or shadow library, and publication data from the Web of Science (WoS). We treat the emergence of Sci-Hub as an exogenous event granting relatively unrestricted access to publications, which are otherwise hidden behind a paywall. We analyze changes in the publication count of researchers from developing countries in a given journal as a proxy for general participation in scientific discourse. Our results indicate that in the exemplary field of mathematics, free access to academic knowledge is likely to improve the representation of authors from developing countries in international journals. Assuming the desirability of greater international diversity in science (e.g., to generate more original work, reproduce empirical findings in different settings, or shift the research focus toward topics that are overlooked by researchers from more developed countries), our findings lend evidence to the claim of the OA movement that scientific knowledge should be free and widely distributed.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.9, S.1336-1355
  8. Kulczycki, E.; Guns, R.; Pölönen, J.; Engels, T.C.E.; Rozkosz, E.A.; Zuccala, A.A.; Bruun, K.; Eskola, O.; Starcic, A.I.; Petr, M.; Sivertsen, G.: Multilingual publishing in the social sciences and humanities : a seven-country European study (2020) 0.00 
    0.0026569143 = product of:
  0.007970743 = sum of:
    0.007970743 = product of:
      0.023912227 = sum of:
        0.023912227 = weight(_text_:science in 11) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023912227 = score(doc=11,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 11, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=11)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    We investigate the state of multilingualism across the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using a comprehensive data set of research outputs from seven European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders [Belgium], Norway, Poland, and Slovenia). Although English tends to be the dominant language of science, SSH researchers often produce culturally and societally relevant work in their local languages. We collected and analyzed a set of 164,218 peer-reviewed journal articles (produced by 51,063 researchers from 2013 to 2015) and found that multilingualism is prevalent despite geographical location and field. Among the researchers who published at least three journal articles during this time period, over one-third from the various countries had written their work in at least two languages. The highest share of researchers who published in only one language were from Flanders (80.9%), whereas the lowest shares were from Slovenia (57.2%) and Poland (59.3%). Our findings show that multilingual publishing is an ongoing practice in many SSH research fields regardless of geographical location, political situation, and/or historical heritage. Here we argue that research is international, but multilingual publishing keeps locally relevant research alive with the added potential for creating impact.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.11, S.1371-1385
  9. Luhmann, J.; Burghardt, M.: Digital humanities - A discipline in its own right? : an analysis of the role and position of digital humanities in the academic landscape (2022) 0.00 
    0.0026569143 = product of:
  0.007970743 = sum of:
    0.007970743 = product of:
      0.023912227 = sum of:
        0.023912227 = weight(_text_:science in 460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023912227 = score(doc=460,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 460, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=460)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  10. Lauer, G.: Datentracking in den Wissenschaften : Wissenschaftsorganisationen und die bizarre Asymmetrie im wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystem (2022) 0.00 
    0.002630211 = product of:
  0.007890632 = sum of:
    0.007890632 = product of:
      0.023671897 = sum of:
        0.023671897 = weight(_text_:science in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023671897 = score(doc=931,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
  11. James, J.E.: Pirate open access as electronic civil disobedience : is it ethical to breach the paywalls of monetized academic publishing? (2020) 0.00 
    0.0022544665 = product of:
  0.0067633996 = sum of:
    0.0067633996 = product of:
      0.020290198 = sum of:
        0.020290198 = weight(_text_:science in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020290198 = score(doc=37,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.12, S.1500-1504
  12. Ortega, J.L.: Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments : how a web journal club is used (2022) 0.00 
    0.0022544665 = product of:
  0.0067633996 = sum of:
    0.0067633996 = product of:
      0.020290198 = sum of:
        0.020290198 = weight(_text_:science in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020290198 = score(doc=544,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.655-670
  13. Hobert, A.; Jahn, N.; Mayr, P.; Schmidt, B.; Taubert, N.: Open access uptake in Germany 2010-2018 : adoption in a diverse research landscape (2021) 0.00 
    0.0021255314 = product of:
  0.0063765943 = sum of:
    0.0063765943 = product of:
      0.019129783 = sum of:
        0.019129783 = weight(_text_:science in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019129783 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.16463245 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
  14. Moksness, L.; Olsen, S.O.: Perceived quality and self-identity in scholarly publishing (2020) 0.00 
    0.0018787221 = product of:
  0.0056361663 = sum of:
    0.0056361663 = product of:
      0.016908498 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 5677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=5677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 5677, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5677)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.3, S.338-348
  15. Kim, L.; Portenoy, J.H.; West, J.D.; Stovel, K.W.: Scientific journals still matter in the era of academic search engines and preprint archives (2020) 0.00 
    0.0018787221 = product of:
  0.0056361663 = sum of:
    0.0056361663 = product of:
      0.016908498 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 5961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=5961,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 5961, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5961)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.10, S.1218-1226
  16. Siler, K.: Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing : economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy (2020) 0.00 
    0.0018787221 = product of:
  0.0056361663 = sum of:
    0.0056361663 = product of:
      0.016908498 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=9,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.11, S.1386-1401
  17. Fang, Z.; Dudek, J.; Costas, R.: ¬The stability of Twitter metrics : a study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications (2020) 0.00 
    0.0018787221 = product of:
  0.0056361663 = sum of:
    0.0056361663 = product of:
      0.016908498 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=35,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.12, S.1455-1469
  18. Cabanac, G.; Labbé, C.: Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature (2021) 0.00 
    0.0018787221 = product of:
  0.0056361663 = sum of:
    0.0056361663 = product of:
      0.016908498 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.12, S.1461-1476
  19. Ma, R.; Li, K.: Digital humanities as a cross-disciplinary battleground : an examination of inscriptions in journal publications (2022) 0.00 
    0.0018787221 = product of:
  0.0056361663 = sum of:
    0.0056361663 = product of:
      0.016908498 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.172-187
  20. Walsh, J.A.; Cobb, P.J.; Fremery, W. de; Golub, K.; Keah, H.; Kim, J.; Kiplang'at, J.; Liu, Y.-H.; Mahony, S.; Oh, S.G.; Sula, C.A.; Underwood, T.; Wang, X.: Digital humanities in the iSchool (2022) 0.00 
    0.0018787221 = product of:
  0.0056361663 = sum of:
    0.0056361663 = product of:
      0.016908498 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.188-203

Authors

Languages

  • e 21
  • d 3

Themes