Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

0.011316321 = product of:
  0.045265283 = sum of:
    0.045265283 = product of:
      0.09053057 = sum of:
        0.09053057 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09053057 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

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

0.008896088 = product of:
  0.035584353 = sum of:
    0.035584353 = weight(_text_:management in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035584353 = score(doc=1656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.008896088 = product of:
  0.035584353 = sum of:
    0.035584353 = weight(_text_:management in 2147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035584353 = score(doc=2147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2147, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2147)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.007413407 = product of:
  0.029653627 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 1226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=1226,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 1226, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1226)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

It has been suggested that institutional e-print services will become an important way of achieving the wide availability of e-prints across a broad range of subject disciplines. However, as yet there are few exemplars of this sort of service. This paper describes how physicists make use of an established centralized subject-based e-prints service, arXiv (formerly known as the Los Alamos XXX service), and discusses the possible implications of this use for institutional multidisciplinary e-print archives. A number of key points are identified, including technical issues (such as file formats and user interface design), management issues (such as submission procedures and administrative staff support), economic issues (such as installation and support costs), quality issues (such as peer review and quality control criteria), policy issues (such as digital preservation and collection development standards), academic issues (such as scholarly communication cultures and publishing trends), and legal issues (such as copyright and intellectual property rights). These are discussed with reference to the project to set up a pilot institutional e-print service at the University of Nottingham, UK. This project is being used as a pragmatic way of investigating the issues surrounding institutional e-print services, particularly in seeing how flexible the e-prints model actually is and how easily it can adapt itself to disciplines other than physics.

0.006401478 = product of:
  0.025605911 = sum of:
    0.025605911 = product of:
      0.051211823 = sum of:
        0.051211823 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051211823 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22

0.006338685 = product of:
  0.02535474 = sum of:
    0.02535474 = product of:
      0.05070948 = sum of:
        0.05070948 = weight(_text_:science in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05070948 = score(doc=805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Science and technology

0.005601293 = product of:
  0.022405172 = sum of:
    0.022405172 = product of:
      0.044810344 = sum of:
        0.044810344 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044810344 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.0054894625 = product of:
  0.02195785 = sum of:
    0.02195785 = product of:
      0.0439157 = sum of:
        0.0439157 = weight(_text_:science in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0439157 = score(doc=3711,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 3711, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3711)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

0.005433158 = product of:
  0.021732632 = sum of:
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=4333,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

This article appeared in the Science and technology section of the print edition under the headline "Publish and don't be damned".

Source

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so

0.005433158 = product of:
  0.021732632 = sum of:
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr/fake-science-103.html

0.004801108 = product of:
  0.019204432 = sum of:
    0.019204432 = product of:
      0.038408864 = sum of:
        0.038408864 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038408864 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 1.2020 13:22:34

0.0045276317 = product of:
  0.018110527 = sum of:
    0.018110527 = product of:
      0.036221053 = sum of:
        0.036221053 = weight(_text_:science in 3466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036221053 = score(doc=3466,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 3466, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ein Beitrag im Umfeld der Diskussion um 'Fake science' die im Juöin 2018 durch die deutuschen Medien geisterte.

0.0040009236 = product of:
  0.016003694 = sum of:
    0.016003694 = product of:
      0.03200739 = sum of:
        0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03200739 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2018 11:38:55

0.0038418232 = product of:
  0.015367293 = sum of:
    0.015367293 = product of:
      0.030734586 = sum of:
        0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 1627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030734586 = score(doc=1627,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 1627, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Fake-Science-Die-Sache-mit-den-Raubverlagen-4129520.html?view=print

0.003200739 = product of:
  0.012802956 = sum of:
    0.012802956 = product of:
      0.025605911 = sum of:
        0.025605911 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025605911 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0031693424 = product of:
  0.01267737 = sum of:
    0.01267737 = product of:
      0.02535474 = sum of:
        0.02535474 = weight(_text_:science in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02535474 = score(doc=931,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.002716579 = product of:
  0.010866316 = sum of:
    0.010866316 = product of:
      0.021732632 = sum of:
        0.021732632 = weight(_text_:science in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021732632 = score(doc=1222,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citation linking is thus also a huge benefit to journal publishers, because, as with electronic bookselling, it drives readers to their content in yet another way. In step with what was largely a subscription-based economy for journal sales, an "article economy" appears to be emerging. Journal publishers sell an increasing amount of their content on an article basis, whether through document delivery services, aggregators, or their own pay-per-view systems. At the same time, most research-oriented access to digitized material is still mediated by libraries. Resource discovery services must be able to authenticate subscribed or licensed users somewhere in the process, and ensure that a given user is accessing as a default the version of an article that their library may have already paid for. The well-known "appropriate copy" issue is addressed below. Another benefit to publishers from including outgoing citation links is simply the value they can add to their own journals. Publishers carry out the bulk of the technological prototyping and development that has produced electronic journals and the enhanced functionality readers have come to expect. There is clearly competition among them to provide readers with the latest features. That a number of publishers would agree to collaborate in the establishment of an infrastructure for reference linking was thus by no means predictable. CrossRef was incorporated in January of 2000 as a collaborative venture among 12 of the world's top scientific and scholarly publishers, both commercial and not-for-profit, to enable cross-publisher reference linking throughout the digital journal literature. The founding members were Academic Press, a Harcourt Company; the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the publisher of Science); American Institute of Physics (AIP); Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); Blackwell Science; Elsevier Science; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE); Kluwer Academic Publishers (a Wolters Kluwer Company); Nature; Oxford University Press; Springer-Verlag; and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Start-up funds for CrossRef were provided as loans from eight of the original publishers.

0.002716579 = product of:
  0.010866316 = sum of:
    0.010866316 = product of:
      0.021732632 = sum of:
        0.021732632 = weight(_text_:science in 5330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021732632 = score(doc=5330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5330, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5330)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Predatory Publishing ist seit der umfangreichen internationalen Medienberichterstattung im Sommer 2018 auch der breiten Öffentlichkeit ein Begriff. Zeitschriften, Radio und Fernsehen in zahlreichen Ländern, darunter auch im deutschen Sprachraum, berichteten über mehrere Wochen ausführlich zu diesen betrügerischen Geschäftspraktiken. Das Problem ist in Fachkreisen jedoch bereits seit einigen Jahren bekannt und nimmt seither immer stärker zu. Die Publikationsservices an der Universität Graz beraten und informieren seit 2017 die Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler, aber auch die Studierenden zum Thema Predatory Publishing. Der folgende Beitrag bietet bietet im ersten Abschnitt wesentliche Informationen zu Predatory Publishing sowie damit in Zusammenhang stehend, auch die im Zuge der Medienkampagne 2018 kolportierten Themen Fake Science und Fake News, und wendet sich in den folgenden zwei Abschnitten der Praxis zu, wenn es zum einen um die Grundlagen der Auseinandersetzung mit Predatory Publishing an Universitäten geht und zum anderen die Aufklärungsarbeit und Services an der Universität Graz durch Mitarbeiter/innen der Universitätsbibliothek als Fallbeispiel aus der Praxis vorgestellt werden.

0.0025612153 = product of:
  0.010244861 = sum of:
    0.010244861 = product of:
      0.020489722 = sum of:
        0.020489722 = weight(_text_:science in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020489722 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.16463245 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0022638158 = product of:
  0.009055263 = sum of:
    0.009055263 = product of:
      0.018110527 = sum of:
        0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 5427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018110527 = score(doc=5427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 5427, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Für fünf deutsche Universitäten sowie ein Forschungsinstitut werden auf Basis der Publikationsdaten des Web of Science Abschätzungen zu den Gesamtausgaben für APCs erstellt und mit den derzeitigen Subskriptionsausgaben verglichen. Der Bericht zeigt, dass die Kostenübernahme auf Basis der projizierten Ausgaben für Publikationen aus nicht-Drittmittel-geförderter Forschung für alle hier betrachteten Einrichtungen ohne Probleme aus den derzeitigen bibliothekarischen Erwerbungsetats für Zeitschriften bestritten werden könnte. Dies setzt jedoch voraus, dass Drittmittelgeber neben der üblichen Forschungsförderung auch für die APCs der aus diesen Projekten resultierenden Publikationen aufkommen. Trifft dies nicht zu und die wissenschaftliche Einrichtung muss für sämtliche Publikationen die APCs selbst tragen, so hängen die budgetären Auswirkungen wesentlich von der zukünftigen Entwicklung der Artikelbearbeitungsgebühren ab.