Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019) 0.02 
    0.02145919 = product of:
  0.15021433 = sum of:
    0.15021433 = sum of:
      0.12076873 = weight(_text_:zugriff in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12076873 = score(doc=596,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2160124 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03622214 = queryNorm
          0.5590824 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
      0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0294456 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Anfang der 2000er Jahre entstanden in Reaktion auf unzureichende Zugangswege zu Fachliteratur und ausgelöst durch steigende Subskriptionsgebühren wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften erste illegale Dokumentensammlungen, sogenannte Schattenbibliotheken. Schattenbibliotheken sind Internetdienste, die ohne Zustimmung der RechteinhaberInnen Datenbanken mit wissenschaftlichen Volltexten erstellen, betreiben und allen Interessierten dadurch den Zugriff auf wissenschaftliche Literatur ermöglichen. Zu den meistgenutzten Schattenbibliotheken zählt Sci-Hub. Der Dienst wurde 2011 von Alexandra Elbakyan entwickelt und umfasste zum Zeitpunkt der Untersuchung mehr als 74 Millionen Dokumente. Die Akzeptanz dieser Dienste unter Forschenden und anderen Personengruppen, verschwimmende Grenzen in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung zu Open Access sowie mögliche Konsequenzen für bestehende legale Zugänge zu Fachliteratur beschäftigen nicht nur InformationswissenschaftlerInnen weltweit. In diesem Beitrag wird die Rolle des Phänomens Schattenbibliothek bei der wissenschaftlichen Informationsversorgung in Deutschland untersucht, insbesondere im Hinblick auf regionale Verteilungen von Downloads, Zugriffszeiten, Zusammenhängen zwischen der Größe bestimmter Personengruppen (Bevölkerungszahl, Anzahl wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeitender an Hochschulen) und den Downloadzahlen eines Bundeslands sowie den Eigenschaften der angefragten Dokumente (Themen, Verlage, Publikationsalter beim Zugriff).
    Date
    1. 1.2020 13:22:34
  2. Hummel, P.: Millionen Fachartikel illegal im Netz verfügbar (2016) 0.01 
    0.005083119 = product of:
  0.03558183 = sum of:
    0.03558183 = product of:
      0.07116366 = sum of:
        0.07116366 = weight(_text_:zugriff in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07116366 = score(doc=2871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2160124 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.32944247 = fieldWeight in 2871, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Die Online-Plattform Sci-Hub überwindet die Paywalls der Verlage und baut eine riesige "Schattenbibliothek" der Wissenschaft auf. Auch Gerichte können sie bislang nicht stoppen. Das hatte sich Elsevier sicherlich anders vorgestellt. Der große Wissenschaftsverlag hat im Juni 2015 Klage gegen die Online-Plattformen Sci-Hub und LibGen eingereicht. Der Grund: Dort war eine riesige Anzahl akademischer Publikationen frei und kostenlos zugänglich gemacht worden. Sci-Hub bot Nutzern Zugriff auf Millionen Veröffentlichungen, viele davon urheberrechtlich geschützt. Seit nun letzte Woche die Website Bigthink.com ausführlich über das Verfahren gegen Sci-Hub vor einem US-Bundesbezirksgerichts in New York berichtet hat, verbreitet sich die Nachricht vom "Pirate Bay für die Wissenschaft" in den sozialen Netzwerken rasant. Eine bessere Werbemaßnahme als das Gerichtsverfahren hätte sich Sci-Hub kaum wünschen können. Elsevier ist einer der größten akademischen Verlage der Welt. Nach Presseberichten macht das Unternehmen mit seinen mehr als 2200 Journalen einen jährlichen Reinerlös von über einer Milliarde Dollar. Doch es sieht seine Geschäfte offenbar durch Sci-Hub bedroht. Mit aktuell mehr als 49 Millionen Veröffentlichungen, die 35 Terabyte an Daten umfassen, wie der (nicht verifizierte) Twitter-Account @Sci_Hub schreibt, umfasst die "Schattenbibliothek" wohl eine der größten je vorhandenen Sammlungen akademischer Literatur.
  3. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.00 
    0.004957425 = product of:
  0.034701973 = sum of:
    0.034701973 = product of:
      0.06940395 = sum of:
        0.06940395 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06940395 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
  4. Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017) 0.00 
    0.0028043431 = product of:
  0.0196304 = sum of:
    0.0196304 = product of:
      0.0392608 = sum of:
        0.0392608 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0392608 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    9.10.2017 15:48:22
  5. Taglinger, H.: Ausgevogelt, jetzt wird es ernst (2018) 0.00 
    0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:38:55
  6. Somers, J.: Torching the modern-day library of Alexandria : somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them. (2017) 0.00 
    0.0014021716 = product of:
  0.0098152 = sum of:
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.
  7. Buranyi, S.: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? (2017) 0.00 
    7.9397525E-4 = product of:
  0.0055578267 = sum of:
    0.0055578267 = product of:
      0.027789133 = sum of:
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=3711,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 3711, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3711)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    It is an industry like no other, with profit margins to rival Google - and it was created by one of Britain's most notorious tycoons: Robert Maxwell. "Even scientists who are fighting for reform are often not aware of the roots of the system: how, in the boom years after the second world war, entrepreneurs built fortunes by taking publishing out of the hands of scientists and expanding the business on a previously unimaginable scale. And no one was more transformative and ingenious than Robert Maxwell, who turned scientific journals into a spectacular money-making machine that bankrolled his rise in British society."

Authors

Languages