Search (56 results, page 3 of 3)

0.004893594 = product of:
  0.02446797 = sum of:
    0.02446797 = weight(_text_:und in 2512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02446797 = score(doc=2512,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 2512, 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=2512)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/forschung-und-lehre/baden-wuerttemberg-entrechtet-seine-wissenschaftlichen-autoren-13988149-p3.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_3

0.004893594 = product of:
  0.02446797 = sum of:
    0.02446797 = weight(_text_:und in 2699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02446797 = score(doc=2699,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 2699, 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=2699)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Die Digitalisierung verändert den Hochschulalltag. Studenten verfolgen Vorlesungen online, Texte stehen im Netz. Es entsteht aber eine Kluft zwischen Studierenden mit vielen technischen Mitteln und denen ohne.

0.004893594 = product of:
  0.02446797 = sum of:
    0.02446797 = weight(_text_:und in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02446797 = score(doc=110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.004893594 = product of:
  0.02446797 = sum of:
    0.02446797 = weight(_text_:und in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02446797 = score(doc=393,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.004844411 = product of:
  0.024222054 = sum of:
    0.024222054 = weight(_text_:und in 959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024222054 = score(doc=959,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.24241515 = fieldWeight in 959, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=959)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Open Access kennt verschiedene Spielarten. Der grüne Open Access ist in der Regel kostenfrei, denn hier werden Nutzern bereits in wissenschaftlichen Journalen publizierte Artikel in einer Art Zweitverwertung auf Open-Access-Servern entgeltfrei bereitgestellt. Im goldenen Open Access hingegen finden sich Journale, die Artikel ohne Publikationsgebühren im Open Access veröffentlichen, und solche, die für die Veröffentlichung der Texte eine sogenannte Article Processing Charge (APC) erheben. Daneben existiert noch der hybride Open Access: Dabei werden einzelne Artikel aus Journalen, die nicht im Open Access erscheinen, gegen entsprechende Zahlungen für die entgeltfreie Verfügbarkeit freigekauft.

0.004844411 = product of:
  0.024222054 = sum of:
    0.024222054 = weight(_text_:und in 523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024222054 = score(doc=523,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.24241515 = fieldWeight in 523, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=523)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"Open Access bietet intuitiv viele Vorteile. Wie Umfragen zeigen, haben einige Wissenschaftler:innen dennoch Vorbehalte. Im letzten Jahrzehnt sind viele empirische Studien erschienen, welche fundierte Ergebnisse zu Hoffnungen und Befürchtungen liefern. Was bisher fehlte, war eine umfassende Übersicht zu empirischen Studienergebnissen zu den Wirkungen von Open Access. Um diese Lücke zu schließen, hat die Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) die Studie <https://doi.org/10.34657/7666> "Wirkungen von Open Access. Literaturstudie über empirische Arbeiten 2010-2021" durchgeführt. Wie wir zeigen konnten, sind viele positive Wirkungen durch die empirische Literatur bestätigt, viele Vorbehalte durch die empirische Literatur zurückgewiesen oder nicht bestätigt. Lesen Sie die Zusammenfassung im Blogpost: https://tib.eu/studie-open-access-wirkungen - oder gleich den gesamten Bericht: https://doi.org/10.34657/7666."

0.004237977 = product of:
  0.021189883 = sum of:
    0.021189883 = weight(_text_:und in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021189883 = score(doc=2871,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.21206908 = fieldWeight in 2871, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2871)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.004152352 = product of:
  0.02076176 = sum of:
    0.02076176 = weight(_text_:und in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02076176 = score(doc=1065,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.20778441 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

" DASS DAS keine normalen Verhandlungen waren, konnte man bereits an der Pressemitteilung erkennen, die am Mittwochvormittag von der Pressestelle der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK) verschickt wurde. Überschrift: "The DEAL Consortium and Elsevier Announce Transformative Open Access Agreement for Germany". Deutsche Übersetzung: Fehlanzeige. So wie auch der gesamte Meldungstext und die beigefügten Statements rein englischsprachig waren. Weil die HRK, Konsortialführer von DEAL, nichts mehr von Wissenschaftskommunikation auf Deutsch hält? Wohl kaum. Die tatsächliche Erklärung dürfte darin bestehen, dass nach sieben Jahren Verhandlungs-Drama, Teile davon auf offener Bühne, die Erleichterung über den abgeschlossenen Open-Access-Transformationsvertrag zwar groß war und die Stimmung unter den neuen Partnern gut. Aber nicht so gut, dass die HRK sich eine eigenständige Übersetzung der mit Elsevier sicherlich bis ins Detail verhandelten Pressemitteilung erlauben zu können glaubte. Eine Abstimmung aber hätte wiederum ein derart komplexes Räderwerk erneut in Bewegung gesetzt, das nicht zu dem Zeitdruck passte, raus zu wollen mit der Agreement-Nachricht. ... "

0.0034602934 = product of:
  0.017301466 = sum of:
    0.017301466 = weight(_text_:und in 2923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017301466 = score(doc=2923,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.17315367 = fieldWeight in 2923, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2923)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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."

0.003425516 = product of:
  0.01712758 = sum of:
    0.01712758 = weight(_text_:und in 4111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712758 = score(doc=4111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 4111, 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=4111)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Die TIB - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften hat ein Positionspapier zum Open Research Knowledge Graph veröffentlicht. Auer, Sören; Blümel, Ina; Ewerth, Ralph; Garatzogianni, Alexandra; Heller, Lambert; Hoppe, Anett; Kasprzik, Anna; Koepler, Oliver; Nejdl, Wolfgang; Plank, Margret; Sens, Irina; Stocker, Markus; Tullney, Marco; Vidal, Maria-Esther; van Wezenbeek, Wilma (2018): Towards an Open Research Knowledge Graph.

0.003425516 = product of:
  0.01712758 = sum of:
    0.01712758 = weight(_text_:und in 5501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712758 = score(doc=5501,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 5501, 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=5501)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag erörtert die Arbeit an der Forschungsinfrastruktur als eine zentrale informationswissenschaftliche Zukunftsaufgabe. Zu diesem Zweck werden aktuelle Open-Access-Entwicklungen - die DEAL-Verhandlungen und Overlay-Journals - als Form der Infrastrukturgovernance diskutiert. Der Beitrag geht von der Grundthese aus, dass sich der Autonomieanspruch einer diskreten Wissenschaftsgovernance auch auf Forschungsinfrastruktur beziehen lässt, wenn man davon ausgeht, dass die Wissenschaft selbst für die Verwaltung ihres Wissens, damit auch für die wissensschaffenden Forschungsinfrastruktur, verantwortlich ist.

0.003425516 = product of:
  0.01712758 = sum of:
    0.01712758 = weight(_text_:und in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712758 = score(doc=599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09991972 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0024432314 = product of:
  0.012216156 = sum of:
    0.012216156 = product of:
      0.024432313 = sum of:
        0.024432313 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024432313 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1578718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045082662 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0018419871 = product of:
  0.009209936 = sum of:
    0.009209936 = weight(_text_:information in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009209936 = score(doc=1656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Table of Contents 1 Economic Issues* 2 Electronic Books and Texts 2.1 Case Studies and History 2.2 General Works* 2.3 Library Issues* 3 Electronic Serials 3.1 Case Studies and History 3.2 Critiques 3.3 Electronic Distribution of Printed Journals 3.4 General Works* 3.5 Library Issues* 3.6 Research* 4 General Works* 5 Legal Issues 5.1 Intellectual Property Rights* 5.2 License Agreements 5.3 Other Legal Issues 6 Library Issues 6.1 Cataloging, Identifiers, Linking, and Metadata* 6.2 Digital Libraries* 6.3 General Works* 6.4 Information Integrity and Preservation* 7 New Publishing Models* 8 Publisher Issues 8.1 Digital Rights Management* 9 Repositories and E-Prints* Appendix A. Related Bibliographies by the Same Author Appendix B. About the Author

0.0017366421 = product of:
  0.00868321 = sum of:
    0.00868321 = weight(_text_:information in 1198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00868321 = score(doc=1198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 1198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1198)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

To arrive at relevant and reliable conclusions concerning the usability of a hypermedia educational e-book, developers have to apply a well-defined evaluation procedure as well as a set of clear, concrete and measurable quality criteria. Evaluating an educational tool involves not only testing the user interface but also the didactic method, the instructional materials and the interaction mechanisms to prove whether or not they help users reach their goals for learning. This article presents a number of evaluation criteria for hypermedia educational e-books and describes how they are embedded into an evaluation procedure. This work is chiefly aimed at helping education developers evaluate their systems, as well as to provide them with guidance for addressing educational requirements during the design process. In recent years, more and more educational e-books are being created, whether by academics trying to keep pace with the advanced requirements of the virtual university or by publishers seeking to meet the increasing demand for educational resources that can be accessed anywhere and anytime, and that include multimedia information, hypertext links and powerful search and annotating mechanisms. To develop a useful educational e-book many things have to be considered, such as the reading patterns of users, accessibility for different types of users and computer platforms, copyright and legal issues, development of new business models and so on. Addressing usability is very important since e-books are interactive systems and, consequently, have to be designed with the needs of their users in mind. Evaluating usability involves analyzing whether systems are effective, efficient and secure for use; easy to learn and remember; and have a good utility. Any interactive system, as e-books are, has to be assessed to determine if it is really usable as well as useful. Such an evaluation is not only concerned with assessing the user interface but is also aimed at analyzing whether the system can be used in an efficient way to meet the needs of its users - who in the case of educational e-books are learners and teachers. Evaluation provides the opportunity to gather valuable information about design decisions. However, to be successful the evaluation has to be carefully planned and prepared so developers collect appropriate and reliable data from which to draw relevant conclusions.

9.2099357E-4 = product of:
  0.004604968 = sum of:
    0.004604968 = weight(_text_:information in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004604968 = score(doc=1222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

CrossRef, the only full-blown application of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System to date, is now a little over a year old. What started as a cooperative effort among publishers and technologists to prototype DOI-based linking of citations in e-journals evolved into an independent, non-profit enterprise in early 2000. We have made considerable headway during our first year, but there is still much to be done. When CrossRef went live with its collaborative linking service last June, it had enabled reference links in roughly 1,100 journals from a member base of 33 publishers, using a functional prototype system. The DOI-X prototype was described in an article published in D-Lib Magazine in February of 2000. On the occasion of CrossRef's first birthday as a live service, this article provides a non-technical overview of our progress to date and the major hurdles ahead. The electronic medium enriches the research literature arena for all players -- researchers, librarians, and publishers -- in numerous ways. Information has been made easier to discover, to share, and to sell. To take a simple example, the aggregation of book metadata by electronic booksellers was a huge boon to scholars seeking out obscure backlist titles, or discovering books they would never otherwise have known to exist. It was equally a boon for the publishers of those books, who saw an unprecedented surge in sales of backlist titles with the advent of centralized electronic bookselling. In the serials sphere, even in spite of price increases and the turmoil surrounding site licenses for some prime electronic content, libraries overall are now able to offer more content to more of their patrons. Yet undoubtedly, the key enrichment for academics and others navigating a scholarly corpus is linking, and in particular the linking that takes the reader out of one document and into another in the matter of a click or two. Since references are how authors make explicit the links between their work and precedent scholarship, what could be more fundamental to the reader than making those links immediately actionable? That said, automated linking is only really useful from a research perspective if it works across publications and across publishers. Not only do academics think about their own writings and those of their colleagues in terms of "author, title, rough date" -- the name of the journal itself is usually not high on the list of crucial identifying features -- but they are oblivious as to the identity of the publishers of all but their very favorite books and journals.