Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023795543 = product of:
  0.047591086 = sum of:
    0.047591086 = product of:
      0.09518217 = sum of:
        0.09518217 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09518217 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17395647 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04967588 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.019961465 = product of:
  0.03992293 = sum of:
    0.03992293 = product of:
      0.15969172 = sum of:
        0.15969172 = weight(_text_:authors in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15969172 = score(doc=805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22646311 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04967588 = queryNorm
            0.70515555 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A publishing giant goes after the authors of its journals' papers

0.013460792 = product of:
  0.026921583 = sum of:
    0.026921583 = product of:
      0.053843167 = sum of:
        0.053843167 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053843167 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17395647 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04967588 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22

0.0100955935 = product of:
  0.020191187 = sum of:
    0.020191187 = product of:
      0.040382374 = sum of:
        0.040382374 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040382374 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17395647 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04967588 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 1.2020 13:22:34

0.008554914 = product of:
  0.017109828 = sum of:
    0.017109828 = product of:
      0.06843931 = sum of:
        0.06843931 = weight(_text_:authors in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06843931 = score(doc=4333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22646311 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04967588 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Whether to get a promotion or merely a foot in the door, academics have long known that they must publish papers, typically the more the better. Tallying scholarly publications to evaluate their authors has been common since the invention of scientific journals in the 17th century. So, too, has the practice of journal editors asking independent, usually anonymous, experts to scrutinise manuscripts and reject those deemed flawed-a quality-control process now known as peer review. Of late, however, this habit of according importance to papers labelled as "peer reviewed" has become something of a gamble. A rising number of journals that claim to review submissions in this way do not bother to do so. Not coincidentally, this seems to be leading some academics to inflate their publication lists with papers that might not pass such scrutiny."

0.008412995 = product of:
  0.01682599 = sum of:
    0.01682599 = product of:
      0.03365198 = sum of:
        0.03365198 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03365198 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17395647 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04967588 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2018 11:38:55

0.007129095 = product of:
  0.01425819 = sum of:
    0.01425819 = product of:
      0.05703276 = sum of:
        0.05703276 = weight(_text_:authors in 2923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05703276 = score(doc=2923,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22646311 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04967588 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2923, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2923)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

" Im Streit mit Google um Urheberrechte ist eine Gruppe von Buchautoren am Obersten US-Gericht gescheitert. Der Supreme Court lehnte es ab, die google-freundliche Entscheidung eines niederen Gerichtes zur Revision zuzulassen. In dem Fall geht es um die Online-Bibliothek "Google Books", für die der kalifornische Konzern Gerichtsunterlagen zufolge mehr als 20 Millionen Bücher digitalisiert hat. Durch das Projekt können Internet-Nutzer innerhalb der Bücher nach Stichworten suchen und die entsprechenden Textstellen lesen. Die drei zuständigen Richter entschieden einstimmig, dass in dem Fall zwar die Grenzen der Fairness ausgetestet würden, aber das Vorgehen von Google letztlich rechtens sei. Entschädigungen in Milliardenhöhe gefürchtet Die von dem Interessensverband Authors Guild angeführten Kläger sahen ihre Urheberrechte durch "Google Books" verletzt. Dazu gehörten auch prominente Künstler wie die Schriftstellerin und Dichterin Margaret Atwood. Google führte dagegen an, die Internet-Bibliothek kurbele den Bücherverkauf an, weil Leser dadurch zusätzlich auf interessante Werke aufmerksam gemacht würden. Google reagierte "dankbar" auf die Entscheidung des Supreme Court. Der Konzern hatte befürchtet, bei einer juristischen Niederlage Entschädigungen in Milliardenhöhe zahlen zu müssen."

0.006730396 = product of:
  0.013460792 = sum of:
    0.013460792 = product of:
      0.026921583 = sum of:
        0.026921583 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026921583 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17395647 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04967588 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.