Search (152 results, page 8 of 8)

0.0018419871 = product of:
  0.009209936 = sum of:
    0.009209936 = weight(_text_:information in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009209936 = score(doc=593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 593, 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=593)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1578-1585

0.0018419871 = product of:
  0.009209936 = sum of:
    0.009209936 = weight(_text_:information in 3168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009209936 = score(doc=3168,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3168, 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=3168)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2333-2346

0.0018419871 = product of:
  0.009209936 = sum of:
    0.009209936 = weight(_text_:information in 3790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009209936 = score(doc=3790,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3790, 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=3790)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0018419871 = product of:
  0.009209936 = sum of:
    0.009209936 = weight(_text_:information in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009209936 = score(doc=4210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4210, 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=4210)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 45(2009) no.1, S.131-141

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.

0.0015349891 = product of:
  0.0076749455 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2096)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.2, S.127-148

0.0015349891 = product of:
  0.0076749455 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.2047-2054

0.0015349891 = product of:
  0.0076749455 = sum of:
    0.0076749455 = weight(_text_:information in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076749455 = score(doc=2960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - By tracking the information-seeking and reading patterns of science, technology, medical and social science faculty members from 1977 to the present, this paper seeks to examine how faculty members locate, obtain, read, and use scholarly articles and how this has changed with the widespread availability of electronic journals and journal alternatives. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered using questionnaire surveys of university faculty and other researchers periodically since 1977. Many questions used the critical incident of the last article reading to allow analysis of the characteristics of readings in addition to characteristics of readers. Findings - The paper finds that the average number of readings per year per science faculty member continues to increase, while the average time spent per reading is decreasing. Electronic articles now account for the majority of readings, though most readings are still printed on paper for final reading. Scientists report reading a higher proportion of older articles from a wider range of journal titles and more articles from library e-collections. Articles are read for many purposes and readings are valuable to those purposes. Originality/value - The paper draws on data collected in a consistent way over 30 years. It provides a unique look at how electronic journals and other developments have influenced changes in reading behavior over three decades. The use of critical incidence provides evidence of the value of reading in addition to reading patterns.

0.0012279914 = product of:
  0.006139957 = sum of:
    0.006139957 = weight(_text_:information in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006139957 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.10, S.940-948

0.0012279914 = product of:
  0.006139957 = sum of:
    0.006139957 = weight(_text_:information in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006139957 = score(doc=1063,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

The volume of scientific literature typically far exceeds the ability of scientists to identify and utilize all relevant information in their research. Improvements to the accessibility of scientific literature, allowing scientists to locate more relevant research within a given time, have the potential to dramatically improve communication and progress in science. With the web, scientists now have very convenient access to an increasing amount of literature that previously required trips to the library, inter-library loan delays, or substantial effort in locating the source. Evidence shows that usage increases when access is more convenient, and maximizing the usage of the scientific record benefits all of society. Although availability varies greatly by discipline, over a million research articles are freely available on the web. Some journals and conferences provide free access online, others allow authors to post articles on the web, and others allow authors to purchase the right to post their articles on the web. In this article we investigate the impact of free online availability by analyzing citation rates. We do not discuss methods of creating free online availability, such as time-delayed release or publication/membership/conference charges. Online availability of an article may not be expected to greatly improve access and impact by itself. For example, efficient means of locating articles via web search engines or specialized search services is required, and a substantial percentage of the literature needs to be indexed by these search services before it is worthwhile for many scientists to use them. Computer science is a forerunner in web availability -- a substantial percentage of the literature is online and available through search engines such as Google (google.com), or specialized services such as ResearchIndex (researchindex.org). Even so, the greatest impact of the online availability of computer science literature is likely yet to come, because comprehensive search services and more powerful search methods have only become available recently. We analyzed 119,924 conference articles in computer science and related disciplines, obtained from DBLP (dblp.uni-trier.de). In computer science, conference articles are typically formal publications and are often more prestigious than journal articles, with acceptance rates at some conferences below 10%. Citation counts and online availability were estimated using ResearchIndex. The analysis excludes self-citations, where a citation is considered to be a self-citation if one or more of the citing and cited authors match.

0.0012279914 = product of:
  0.006139957 = sum of:
    0.006139957 = weight(_text_:information in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006139957 = score(doc=1901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07914162 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045082662 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1901, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1901)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - To explore the belief that digital technology has created a steep and irreversible decline in traditional library use, particularly in borrowing from public and higher education library print collections, with a concomitant effect on familiar patterns of reading and reflection. If digital technology has led to a fundamental change in the way young people in HE process information, should traditional assumptions about library use and educational reading habits be abandoned? Design/methodology/approach - This is a comparative analysis of statistics of library use available in the public domain in the USA and UK. Findings - That reading habits shown in the use of public libraries are arguably conservative in nature; and that recent statistics for the circulation of print stock in US and UK university libraries indisputably show year on year increases, not decreases, except where the digitisation of print originals has provided a generous supply of effective digital surrogates for print holdings. The nature of reading has not changed fundamentally in nature. But where copyright law permits large-scale provision of digital collections to be derived from print originals, these will readily displace borrowing from print collections, leading to lower circulation figures of hard copy items. Research limitations/implications - This paper asserts that the restrictive nature of UK copyright law, which is demonstrably backward by international standards, is a major factor inhibiting university teachers from helping their students migrate from print to digital media. This assertion should be researched in greater depth, with a view to using such research to influence the development of future intellectual property legislation in the UK. Practical implications - Because of the essentially conservative nature of reflective reading for educational purposes, digitisation programmes offer an important way forward for academic library service development. Library managers should not underestimate the persistent demand for traditional reading materials: where such materials are provided in digital or print formats, in most cases the digital formats will be preferred; but where high quality educational resources are only available in print, there is no evidence that the format of alternative digital media is in itself sufficient to lure students away from quality content. Originality/value - This paper questions some of the more casual assumptions about the "death" of traditional library services.

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.