Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019) 0.04 
    0.037864305 = product of:
  0.11359291 = sum of:
    0.11359291 = sum of:
      0.07543638 = weight(_text_:datenbanken in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07543638 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23111258 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.9238067 = idf(docFreq=873, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046937786 = queryNorm
          0.32640535 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.9238067 = idf(docFreq=873, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
      0.038156528 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038156528 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16436812 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046937786 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.01 
    0.014989301 = product of:
  0.0449679 = sum of:
    0.0449679 = product of:
      0.0899358 = sum of:
        0.0899358 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0899358 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16436812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046937786 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
  3. Gutknecht, C.: Zahlungen der ETH Zürich an Elsevier, Springer und Wiley nun öffentlich (2015) 0.01 
    0.014668185 = product of:
  0.044004556 = sum of:
    0.044004556 = product of:
      0.08800911 = sum of:
        0.08800911 = weight(_text_:datenbanken in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08800911 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23111258 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9238067 = idf(docFreq=873, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046937786 = queryNorm
            0.38080624 = fieldWeight in 4324, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9238067 = idf(docFreq=873, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Was bezahlt die ETH Bibliothek an Elsevier, Springer und Wiley? Die Antwort auf diese einfache Frage liegt nun nach gut 14 Monaten und einem Entscheid der ersten Rekursinstanz (EDÖB) vor. Werfen wir nun also einen Blick in diese nun erstmals öffentlich zugänglichen Daten (auch als XLSX). Die ETH-Bibliothek schlüsselte die Ausgaben wie von mir gewünscht in Datenbanken, E-Books und Zeitschriften auf.
  4. Schönfelder, N.: Mittelbedarf für Open Access an ausgewählten deutschen Universitäten und Forschungseinrichtungen : Transformationsrechnung (2019) 0.01 
    0.0104772765 = product of:
  0.031431828 = sum of:
    0.031431828 = product of:
      0.062863655 = sum of:
        0.062863655 = weight(_text_:datenbanken in 5427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062863655 = score(doc=5427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23111258 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9238067 = idf(docFreq=873, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046937786 = queryNorm
            0.27200446 = fieldWeight in 5427, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9238067 = idf(docFreq=873, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Die Transformation subskriptionsbasierter, wissenschaftlicher Fachzeitschriften in den Open Access wird Änderungen in der finanziellen Belastung wissenschaftlicher Einrichtungen in Deutschland nach sich ziehen. Artikelbearbeitungsgebühren (APCs) sind im Bereich der international sichtbaren und in einschlägigen bibliographischen Datenbanken indexierten Open-Access-Zeitschriften das derzeit dominierende Geschäftsmodell. Wenn sich dieses Geschäftsmodell (APC) auch bei zurzeit hybriden Zeitschriften durchsetzen, kommt es zu einer Umverteilung von Ausgaben für Fachzeitschriften. Einrichtungen mit wenigen Publikationen werden voraussichtlich finanziell entlastet, Einrichtungen mit vielen Publikationen zusätzlich belastet. Um auf die Open-Access- Transformation adäquat im eigenen Hause zu reagieren und diese aktiv mitzugestalten, sind gesicherte Abschätzungen zu finanziellen Ent- bzw. Belastungen im Hinblick auf die zu erwartenden institutionellen APC-Gesamtausgaben der einzelnen Einrichtungen nach einer umfassenden Transformation von Zeitschriften in den Open Access unverzichtbar. An dieser Stelle setzt der vorliegende Bericht an.
  5. Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017) 0.01 
    0.008479229 = product of:
  0.025437687 = sum of:
    0.025437687 = product of:
      0.050875373 = sum of:
        0.050875373 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050875373 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16436812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046937786 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    9.10.2017 15:48:22
  6. Krüger, N.; Pianos, T.: Lernmaterialien für junge Forschende in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften als Open Educational Resources (OER) (2021) 0.01 
    0.0074193254 = product of:
  0.022257976 = sum of:
    0.022257976 = product of:
      0.044515952 = sum of:
        0.044515952 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044515952 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16436812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046937786 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
  7. Taglinger, H.: Ausgevogelt, jetzt wird es ernst (2018) 0.01 
    0.005299519 = product of:
  0.015898556 = sum of:
    0.015898556 = product of:
      0.03179711 = sum of:
        0.03179711 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03179711 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16436812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046937786 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:38:55
  8. 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 
    0.0042396146 = product of:
  0.012718843 = sum of:
    0.012718843 = product of:
      0.025437687 = sum of:
        0.025437687 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025437687 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16436812 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046937786 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

Types