Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Graf, K.: Zur Open-Access-Heuchelei der Bibliotheken : sie lassen ihr Repositorium e-LiS verkommen (2021) 0.04 
    0.03571527 = product of:
  0.1517899 = sum of:
    0.03288817 = product of:
      0.06577634 = sum of:
        0.06577634 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06577634 = score(doc=396,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11129492 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.5910094 = fieldWeight in 396, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=396)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06577634 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06577634 = score(doc=396,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11129492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.5910094 = fieldWeight in 396, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=396)
    0.006124827 = weight(_text_:in in 396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006124827 = score(doc=396,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 396, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=396)
    0.047000572 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047000572 = score(doc=396,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09407886 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.49958694 = fieldWeight in 396, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=396)
  0.23529412 = coord(4/17)
    Content
    Vgl. auch den Post des Autors in Inetbib vom 27.12.2021.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
  2. Santos Green, L.; Johnston, M.P.: ¬A contextualization of editorial misconduct in the library and information science academic information ecosystem (2022) 0.02 
    0.021548213 = product of:
  0.09157991 = sum of:
    0.016444085 = product of:
      0.03288817 = sum of:
        0.03288817 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03288817 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11129492 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.033585835 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033585835 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11246919 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
    0.03288817 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03288817 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11129492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
    0.008661814 = weight(_text_:in in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008661814 = score(doc=612,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
  0.23529412 = coord(4/17)
    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.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
  3. Lauer, G.: Datentracking in den Wissenschaften : Wissenschaftsorganisationen und die bizarre Asymmetrie im wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystem (2022) 0.01 
    0.013384091 = product of:
  0.07584318 = sum of:
    0.021209903 = weight(_text_:und in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021209903 = score(doc=931,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
    0.0071456316 = weight(_text_:in in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071456316 = score(doc=931,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
    0.047487643 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047487643 = score(doc=931,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09407886 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.5047642 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
  0.1764706 = coord(3/17)
    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.
  4. Frick, C.; Kaier, C.: Publikationskosten für Zeitschriftenartikel abseits von Open-Access-Publikationsfonds : Lost in Transformation? (2020) 0.01 
    0.009830119 = product of:
  0.05570401 = sum of:
    0.023234284 = weight(_text_:und in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023234284 = score(doc=69,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
    0.005052725 = weight(_text_:in in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005052725 = score(doc=69,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
    0.027417 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027417 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09407886 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.29142573 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
  0.1764706 = coord(3/17)
    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.
  5. Kirsch, M.A.: Plan S in der Diskussion : Reaktionen aus der Wissenschaft auf die internationale Open-Access-Initiative (2020) 0.01 
    0.0086790975 = product of:
  0.04918155 = sum of:
    0.018179916 = weight(_text_:und in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018179916 = score(doc=132,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
    0.007501351 = weight(_text_:in in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007501351 = score(doc=132,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
    0.023500286 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023500286 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09407886 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.24979347 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
  0.1764706 = coord(3/17)
    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.
  6. Krüger, N.; Pianos, T.: Lernmaterialien für junge Forschende in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften als Open Educational Resources (OER) (2021) 0.01 
    0.0077338726 = product of:
  0.043825276 = sum of:
    0.023234284 = weight(_text_:und in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023234284 = score(doc=252,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
    0.008751577 = weight(_text_:in in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008751577 = score(doc=252,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
    0.011839416 = product of:
      0.023678832 = sum of:
        0.023678832 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023678832 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08743035 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024967048 = 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)
  0.1764706 = coord(3/17)
    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.
    Content
    Teil 1 in: Open Password. 2021, Nr.920 vom 10.05.2021.
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
  7. Brembs, B.: ¬Der Anfang vom Ende der Wissenschaftsverlage? (2023) 0.00 
    0.0026893357 = product of:
  0.022859354 = sum of:
    0.018776136 = weight(_text_:und in 1056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018776136 = score(doc=1056,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
    0.004083218 = weight(_text_:in in 1056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004083218 = score(doc=1056,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 1056, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1056)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    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.
  8. Brembs, B.: ¬Die Dreifaltigkeit des Versagens (2021) 0.00 
    0.002194651 = product of:
  0.018654533 = sum of:
    0.013550509 = weight(_text_:und in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013550509 = score(doc=393,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
    0.005104023 = weight(_text_:in in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005104023 = score(doc=393,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    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.
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch das Posting von Gerald Jagusch in Inetbib vom 14.10.2021.
  9. 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 
    0.00207196 = product of:
  0.017611658 = sum of:
    0.010840407 = weight(_text_:und in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010840407 = score(doc=250,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
    0.0067712516 = weight(_text_:in in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067712516 = score(doc=250,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.19937998 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.11764706 = coord(2/17)
    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.
  10. Brembs, B.; Förstner, K.; Kraker, P.; Lauer, G.; Müller-Birn, C.; Schönbrodt, F.; Siems, R.: Auf einmal Laborratte (2021) 0.00 
    0.0011272536 = product of:
  0.019163312 = sum of:
    0.019163312 = weight(_text_:und in 83) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019163312 = score(doc=83,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    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
  11. Herb, U.: Sci-hub = Spy-Hub? (2020) 0.00 
    0.0011159243 = product of:
  0.018970713 = sum of:
    0.018970713 = weight(_text_:und in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018970713 = score(doc=5333,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    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.
  12. Döpfner, M.: Totale Transparenz endet immer totalitär (2021) 0.00 
    7.970888E-4 = product of:
  0.013550509 = sum of:
    0.013550509 = weight(_text_:und in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013550509 = score(doc=110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    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.
  13. Graf, K.: Verschlimmbesserung total : die Stümper*innen von DigiZeitschriften haben sich selbst übertroffen (2022) 0.00 
    5.5796216E-4 = product of:
  0.0094853565 = sum of:
    0.0094853565 = weight(_text_:und in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0094853565 = score(doc=599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055336144 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = 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)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    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.
  14. Ma, R.; Li, K.: Digital humanities as a cross-disciplinary battleground : an examination of inscriptions in journal publications (2022) 0.00 
    4.7471584E-4 = product of:
  0.008070169 = sum of:
    0.008070169 = weight(_text_:in in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008070169 = score(doc=461,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    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.
  15. 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 
    4.7471584E-4 = product of:
  0.008070169 = sum of:
    0.008070169 = weight(_text_:in in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008070169 = score(doc=647,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    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.
  16. 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 
    4.503549E-4 = product of:
  0.0076560336 = sum of:
    0.0076560336 = weight(_text_:in in 460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076560336 = score(doc=460,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 460, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=460)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    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.
  17. 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 
    4.503549E-4 = product of:
  0.0076560336 = sum of:
    0.0076560336 = weight(_text_:in in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076560336 = score(doc=463,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    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.
  18. Moore, S.A.: Revisiting "the 1990s debutante" : scholar-led publishing and the prehistory of the open access movement (2020) 0.00 
    3.9717578E-4 = product of:
  0.006751988 = sum of:
    0.006751988 = weight(_text_:in in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006751988 = score(doc=5920,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Abstract
    The movement for open access publishing (OA) is often said to have its roots in the scientific disciplines, having been popularized by scientific publishers and formalized through a range of top-down policy interventions. But there is an often-neglected prehistory of OA that can be found in the early DIY publishers of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Managed entirely by working academics, these journals published research in the humanities and social sciences and stand out for their unique set of motivations and practices. This article explores this separate lineage in the history of the OA movement through a critical-theoretical analysis of the motivations and practices of the early scholar-led publishers. Alongside showing the involvement of the humanities and social sciences in the formation of OA, the analysis reveals the importance that these journals placed on experimental practices, critique of commercial publishing, and the desire to reach new audiences. Understood in today's context, this research is significant for adding complexity to the history of OA, which policymakers, advocates, and publishing scholars should keep in mind as OA goes mainstream.
  19. Springer, M.: Selbstkontrolle mir kleinen Fehlern (2020) 0.00 
    3.6028394E-4 = product of:
  0.006124827 = sum of:
    0.006124827 = weight(_text_:in in 5971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006124827 = score(doc=5971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 5971, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5971)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Abstract
    In aller Regel bestätigen renommierte Kollegen die Zuverlässigkeit einer eingereichten Forschungsarbeit. Doch manchmal entgeht ihnen etwas.
  20. Moksness, L.; Olsen, S.O.: Perceived quality and self-identity in scholarly publishing (2020) 0.00 
    3.3567476E-4 = product of:
  0.005706471 = sum of:
    0.005706471 = weight(_text_:in in 5677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005706471 = score(doc=5677,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.033961542 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024967048 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 5677, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5677)
  0.05882353 = coord(1/17)
    Abstract
    The purpose of the study was to understand if and how 2 proposed facets of self-identity (work-self and career-self) and journals' perceived quality (impact, visibility, and content quality) influence and explain the intention to publish in open access (OA) or nonopen access (non-OA) journals. This study integrates attitude and identity theory within a cross-sectional survey design. The sample consists of about 1,600 researchers in Norway, and the data were collected via e-mail invitation using a digital surveying tool and analyzed using structural equation modeling techniques. We determined that perceived impact-quality increases the intention to publish non-OA, while decreasing the intention to publish OA. Content quality is only associated with non-OA journals. Perceived visibility increases the intention to publish OA, while the opposite effect is found for non-OA. Career-self salience has the strongest effect on impact-quality, while content quality is most important when work-self is salient. This research contributes to a deeper understanding about how perceived quality influences intention to publish in OA and non-OA journals, and how self-identity salience affects different facets of perceived quality in valence and strength. Findings have implications for policy development, implementation, and assessment and may contribute to improving OA adoption.

Authors

Languages

  • e 21
  • d 12

Themes