Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Frick, C.; Kaier, C.: Publikationskosten für Zeitschriftenartikel abseits von Open-Access-Publikationsfonds : Lost in Transformation? (2020) 0.03 
    0.03318674 = product of:
  0.06637348 = sum of:
    0.064728215 = weight(_text_:von in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064728215 = score(doc=69,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.5054244 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
    0.0016452647 = product of:
      0.004935794 = sum of:
        0.004935794 = weight(_text_:a in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004935794 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  2. Krüger, N.; Pianos, T.: Lernmaterialien für junge Forschende in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften als Open Educational Resources (OER) (2021) 0.03 
    0.030032966 = product of:
  0.060065933 = sum of:
    0.026425181 = weight(_text_:von in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026425181 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.20633863 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
    0.03364075 = product of:
      0.05046112 = sum of:
        0.004935794 = weight(_text_:a in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004935794 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
        0.045525327 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045525327 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16809508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
    Type
    a
  3. Kirsch, M.A.: Plan S in der Diskussion : Reaktionen aus der Wissenschaft auf die internationale Open-Access-Initiative (2020) 0.03 
    0.028445775 = product of:
  0.05689155 = sum of:
    0.055481322 = weight(_text_:von in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055481322 = score(doc=132,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.43322086 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
    0.001410227 = product of:
      0.004230681 = sum of:
        0.004230681 = weight(_text_:a in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004230681 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  4. Brembs, B.; Förstner, K.; Kraker, P.; Lauer, G.; Müller-Birn, C.; Schönbrodt, F.; Siems, R.: Auf einmal Laborratte (2021) 0.02 
    0.020050319 = product of:
  0.040100638 = sum of:
    0.03775026 = weight(_text_:von in 83) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03775026 = score(doc=83,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.29476947 = fieldWeight in 83, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=83)
    0.002350378 = product of:
      0.007051134 = sum of:
        0.007051134 = weight(_text_:a in 83) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007051134 = score(doc=83,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 83, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=83)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  5. Döpfner, M.: Totale Transparenz endet immer totalitär (2021) 0.02 
    0.020050319 = product of:
  0.040100638 = sum of:
    0.03775026 = weight(_text_:von in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03775026 = score(doc=110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.29476947 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
    0.002350378 = product of:
      0.007051134 = sum of:
        0.007051134 = weight(_text_:a in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007051134 = score(doc=110,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  6. Brembs, B.: ¬Die Dreifaltigkeit des Versagens (2021) 0.02 
    0.020050319 = product of:
  0.040100638 = sum of:
    0.03775026 = weight(_text_:von in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03775026 = score(doc=393,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.29476947 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
    0.002350378 = product of:
      0.007051134 = sum of:
        0.007051134 = weight(_text_:a in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007051134 = score(doc=393,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch das Posting von Gerald Jagusch in Inetbib vom 14.10.2021.
    Type
    a
  7. Herb, U.: Sci-hub = Spy-Hub? (2020) 0.02 
    0.019508056 = product of:
  0.039016113 = sum of:
    0.03737085 = weight(_text_:von in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03737085 = score(doc=5333,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.29180688 = fieldWeight in 5333, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5333)
    0.0016452647 = product of:
      0.004935794 = sum of:
        0.004935794 = weight(_text_:a in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004935794 = score(doc=5333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5333)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  8. Graf, K.: Verschlimmbesserung total : die Stümper*innen von DigiZeitschriften haben sich selbst übertroffen (2022) 0.02 
    0.019508056 = product of:
  0.039016113 = sum of:
    0.03737085 = weight(_text_:von in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03737085 = score(doc=599,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.29180688 = fieldWeight in 599, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=599)
    0.0016452647 = product of:
      0.004935794 = sum of:
        0.004935794 = weight(_text_:a in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004935794 = score(doc=599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 599, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=599)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  9. Ming, W.; Zhao, Z.: Rethinking the open access citation advantage : evidence from the "reverse-flipping" journals (2022) 0.01 
    0.014029406 = product of:
  0.056117624 = sum of:
    0.056117624 = product of:
      0.084176436 = sum of:
        0.00863584 = weight(_text_:a in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00863584 = score(doc=750,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 750, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=750)
        0.075540595 = weight(_text_:z in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075540595 = score(doc=750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2562021 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 750, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=750)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Although the open access citation advantage (OACA) has been discussed extensively, scholars lack a clear understanding of the mechanisms through which switching from subscription-based model to open access (OA) model affects the citation impact of a scholarly journal. Many journals have switched from subscription to OA, yet they later also flipped their preswitching articles (i.e., those under subscription model) to OA, thus leaving no subscription article to be compared with their postswitching OA counterparts. To detect the switching effect, our study instead focused on 60 journals that "reverse flipped" from OA to subscription. We use a difference-in-difference (DiD) analytical framework to analyze two propositions related to OACA, based on the bibliographic and citation data of pre- and postswitching publications in these journals. Our findings indicate that reverse flipping is unlikely to affect the journals' impact through changing the visibility of their articles. Instead, it could lead to a systematical shift in the submissions to the journals and thus considerably affect their impact. Our findings have important theoretical and practical implications for subsequent studies, funding agencies, and scholarly journals considering a reverse flip.
    Type
    a
  10. Fang, Z.; Dudek, J.; Costas, R.: ¬The stability of Twitter metrics : a study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications (2020) 0.01 
    0.013607843 = product of:
  0.05443137 = sum of:
    0.05443137 = product of:
      0.08164705 = sum of:
        0.006106462 = weight(_text_:a in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006106462 = score(doc=35,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
        0.075540595 = weight(_text_:z in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075540595 = score(doc=35,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2562021 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study investigated the stability of Twitter counts of scientific publications over time. For this, we conducted an analysis of the availability statuses of over 2.6 million Twitter mentions received by the 1,154 most tweeted scientific publications recorded by Altmetric.com up to October 2017. The results show that of the Twitter mentions for these highly tweeted publications, about 14.3% had become unavailable by April 2019. Deletion of tweets by users is the main reason for unavailability, followed by suspension and protection of Twitter user accounts. This study proposes two measures for describing the Twitter dissemination structures of publications: Degree of Originality (i.e., the proportion of original tweets received by an article) and Degree of Concentration (i.e., the degree to which retweets concentrate on a single original tweet). Twitter metrics of publications with relatively low Degree of Originality and relatively high Degree of Concentration were observed to be at greater risk of becoming unstable due to the potential disappearance of their Twitter mentions. In light of these results, we emphasize the importance of paying attention to the potential risk of unstable Twitter counts, and the significance of identifying the different Twitter dissemination structures when studying the Twitter metrics of scientific publications.
    Type
    a
  11. Ma, R.; Li, K.: Digital humanities as a cross-disciplinary battleground : an examination of inscriptions in journal publications (2022) 0.00 
    9.7441534E-4 = product of:
  0.0038976613 = sum of:
    0.0038976613 = product of:
      0.011692984 = sum of:
        0.011692984 = weight(_text_:a in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011692984 = score(doc=461,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Inscriptions are defined as traces of scientific research production that are embodied in material artifacts and media, which encompass a wide variety of nonverbal forms such as graphs, diagrams, and tables. Inscription serves as a fundamental rhetorical device in research outputs and practices. As many inscriptions are deeply rooted in a scientific research paradigm, they can be used to evaluate the level of scientificity of a scientific field. This is specifically helpful to understand the relationships between research traditions in digital humanities (DH), a highly cross-disciplinary between various humanities and scientific traditions. This paper presents a quantitative, community-focused examination of how inscriptions are used in English-language research articles in DH journals. We randomly selected 252 articles published between 2011 and 2020 from a representative DH journal list, and manually classified the inscriptions and author domains in these publications. We found that inscriptions have been increasingly used during the past decade, and their uses are more intensive in publications led by STEM authors comparing to other domains. This study offers a timely survey of the disciplinary landscape of DH from the perspective of inscriptions and sheds light on how different research approaches collaborate and combat in the field of DH.
    Series
    JASIST special issue on digital humanities (DH): A. Landscapes of DH
    Type
    a
  12. 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 
    9.2906854E-4 = product of:
  0.0037162742 = sum of:
    0.0037162742 = product of:
      0.0111488225 = sum of:
        0.0111488225 = weight(_text_:a in 460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0111488225 = score(doc=460,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 460, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=460)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Series
    JASIST special issue on digital humanities (DH): A. Landscapes of DH
    Type
    a
  13. 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 
    8.309842E-4 = product of:
  0.0033239368 = sum of:
    0.0033239368 = product of:
      0.0099718105 = sum of:
        0.0099718105 = weight(_text_:a in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0099718105 = score(doc=463,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The interdisciplinary field known as digital humanities (DH) is represented in various forms in the teaching and research practiced in iSchools. Building on the work of an iSchools organization committee charged with exploring digital humanities curricula, we present findings from a series of related studies exploring aspects of DH teaching, education, and research in iSchools, often in collaboration with other units and disciplines. Through a survey of iSchool programs and an online DH course registry, we investigate the various education models for DH training found in iSchools, followed by a detailed look at DH courses and curricula, explored through analysis of course syllabi and course descriptions. We take a brief look at collaborative disciplines with which iSchools cooperate on DH research projects or in offering DH education. Next, we explore DH careers through an analysis of relevant job advertisements. Finally, we offer some observations about the management and administrative challenges and opportunities related to offering a new iSchool DH program. Our results provide a snapshot of the current state of digital humanities in iSchools which may usefully inform the design and evolution of new DH programs, degrees, and related initiatives.
    Series
    JASIST special issue on digital humanities (DH): A. Landscapes of DH
    Type
    a
  14. Springer, M.: Selbstkontrolle mir kleinen Fehlern (2020) 0.00 
    7.051135E-4 = product of:
  0.002820454 = sum of:
    0.002820454 = product of:
      0.008461362 = sum of:
        0.008461362 = weight(_text_:a in 5971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008461362 = score(doc=5971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5971, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5971)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  15. Graf, K.: Zur Open-Access-Heuchelei der Bibliotheken : sie lassen ihr Repositorium e-LiS verkommen (2021) 0.00 
    7.051135E-4 = product of:
  0.002820454 = sum of:
    0.002820454 = product of:
      0.008461362 = sum of:
        0.008461362 = weight(_text_:a in 396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008461362 = score(doc=396,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 396, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=396)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  16. Santos Green, L.; Johnston, M.P.: ¬A contextualization of editorial misconduct in the library and information science academic information ecosystem (2022) 0.00 
    7.051135E-4 = product of:
  0.002820454 = sum of:
    0.002820454 = product of:
      0.008461362 = sum of:
        0.008461362 = weight(_text_:a in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008461362 = score(doc=612,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  17. Zeng, M.L.; Sula, C.A.; Gracy, K.F.; Hyvönen, E.; Alves Lima, V.M.: JASIST special issue on digital humanities (DH) : guest editorial (2022) 0.00 
    6.6478737E-4 = product of:
  0.0026591495 = sum of:
    0.0026591495 = product of:
      0.007977448 = sum of:
        0.007977448 = weight(_text_:a in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007977448 = score(doc=462,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 462, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=462)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  18. 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 
    6.569507E-4 = product of:
  0.0026278028 = sum of:
    0.0026278028 = product of:
      0.007883408 = sum of:
        0.007883408 = weight(_text_:a in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007883408 = score(doc=647,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  19. Morrison, H.; Borges, L.; Zhao, X.; Kakou, T.L.; Shanbhoug, A.N.: Change and growth in open access journal publishing and charging trends 2011-2021 (2022) 0.00 
    6.569507E-4 = product of:
  0.0026278028 = sum of:
    0.0026278028 = product of:
      0.007883408 = sum of:
        0.007883408 = weight(_text_:a in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007883408 = score(doc=741,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 to 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon and Björk. Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data are drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data. Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC, and pricing trends. Half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation. The university sector may be the most promising approach to economically sustainable no-fee OA journals. Universities publish many OA journals, nearly half of OA articles, tend not to charge APCs and when APCs are charged, the prices are very low on average.
    Type
    a
  20. Ortega, J.L.: Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments : how a web journal club is used (2022) 0.00 
    6.106462E-4 = product of:
  0.0024425848 = sum of:
    0.0024425848 = product of:
      0.007327754 = sum of:
        0.007327754 = weight(_text_:a in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007327754 = score(doc=544,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 21
  • d 12

Themes