Search (91 results, page 2 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Björk, B.-C.; Laakso, M.; Welling, P.; Paetau, P.: Anatomy of green open access (2014) 0.00 
    0.003211426 = product of:
  0.022479981 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1194, 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=1194)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Open access (OA) is free, unrestricted access to electronic versions of scholarly publications. For peer-reviewed journal articles, there are two main routes to OA: publishing in OA journals (gold OA) or archiving of article copies or manuscripts at other web locations (green OA). This study focuses on summarizing and extending current knowledge about green OA. A synthesis of previous studies indicates that green OA coverage of all published journal articles is approximately 12%, with substantial disciplinary variation. Typically, green OA copies become available after considerable time delays, partly caused by publisher-imposed embargo periods, and partly by author tendencies to archive manuscripts only periodically. Although green OA copies should ideally be archived in proper repositories, a large share is stored on home pages and similar locations, with no assurance of long-term preservation. Often such locations contain exact copies of published articles, which may infringe on the publisher's exclusive rights. The technical foundation for green OA uploading is becoming increasingly solid largely due to the rapid increase in the number of institutional repositories. The number of articles within the scope of OA mandates, which strongly influence the self-archival rate of articles, is nevertheless still low.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.237-250
  2. Vincent-Lamarre, P.; Boivin, J.; Gargouri, Y.; Larivière, V.; Harnad, S.: Estimating open access mandate effectiveness : the MELIBEA score (2016) 0.00 
    0.003211426 = product of:
  0.022479981 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3162, 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=3162)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    MELIBEA is a directory of institutional open-access policies for research output that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the "strength" of open access (OA) mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed total Web of Science-(WoS)-indexed publication output in years 2011-2013 for 67 institutions in which OA was mandated to estimate the mandates' effectiveness: How well did the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of the WoS-indexed articles is actually deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when? We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between the MELIBEA "strength" score and deposit percentage. For three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or latency ([a] immediate deposit required; [b] deposit required for performance evaluation; [c] unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power for mandate effectiveness doubled (0.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but the present findings already suggest that it would be productive for existing and future mandates to adopt the three identified conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.11, S.2815-2828
  3. Zahedi, Z.; Costas, R.; Wouters, P.: Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications (2017) 0.00 
    0.003211426 = product of:
  0.022479981 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This study presents a large-scale analysis of the distribution and presence of Mendeley readership scores over time and across disciplines. We study whether Mendeley readership scores (RS) can identify highly cited publications more effectively than journal citation scores (JCS). Web of Science (WoS) publications with digital object identifiers (DOIs) published during the period 2004-2013 and across five major scientific fields were analyzed. The main result of this study shows that RS are more effective (in terms of precision/recall values) than JCS to identify highly cited publications across all fields of science and publication years. The findings also show that 86.5% of all the publications are covered by Mendeley and have at least one reader. Also, the share of publications with Mendeley RS is increasing from 84% in 2004 to 89% in 2009, and decreasing from 88% in 2010 to 82% in 2013. However, it is noted that publications from 2010 onwards exhibit on average a higher density of readership versus citation scores. This indicates that compared to citation scores, RS are more prevalent for recent publications and hence they could work as an early indicator of research impact. These findings highlight the potential and value of Mendeley as a tool for scientometric purposes and particularly as a relevant tool to identify highly cited publications.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2511-2521
  4. Altenhöner, R.: Langzeitarchivierung in der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek : Aktuelle Perspektiven (2011) 0.00 
    0.003153452 = product of:
  0.044148326 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 5145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=5145,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 5145, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5145)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 35(2011) H.1, S.10-14
  5. "Google Books" darf weitermachen wie bisher : Entscheidung des Supreme Court in den USA (2016) 0.00 
    0.002787284 = product of:
  0.039021976 = sum of:
    0.039021976 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039021976 = score(doc=2923,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.32074454 = fieldWeight in 2923, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2923)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    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."
  6. Bauer, B.; Stieg, K.: Open Access Publishing in Österreich 2010 (2010) 0.00 
    0.0027592706 = product of:
  0.038629785 = sum of:
    0.038629785 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 3683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038629785 = score(doc=3683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.31752092 = fieldWeight in 3683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3683)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Series
    Themen: Digitale Bibliothek
  7. Gullath, B.; Ikas, W.-V.: Zum Nutzen von E-Zeitschriften, Datenbanken und Internet-Publikationen : Neue Wege im Ausbau der BSB-Forschungsdokumentation zu Handschriften und Seltenen Drucken (2011) 0.00 
    0.0027592706 = product of:
  0.038629785 = sum of:
    0.038629785 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 4643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038629785 = score(doc=4643,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.31752092 = fieldWeight in 4643, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4643)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    In der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek wird seit über 100 Jahren neu erscheinende Literatur zu den Beständen der Handschriftenabteilung dokumentiert, 2002 wurde dieses interne Findmittel in eine SISIS-Datenbank überführt und damit überregional zugänglich. In den letzten drei Jahren trat neben die systematische Durchsicht von neuerworbenen Printmedien (Monographien und Zeitschriften) nun die retrospektive Auswertung von elektronischen Fachzeitschriften, online verfügbaren und von der Bibliothek lizenzierten Lexika bzw. Bibliographien sowie frei zugänglichen Internet-Ressourcen. Mit dieser zukunftsweisenden Neuerung gelang es, die Zahl der bibliographischen Nachweise um rund ein Viertel zu steigern. Die vielfältigen Möglichkeiten der kontextsensitiven Verlinkung werden die Wahrnehmung und Bedeutung der Forschungsdokumentation künftig noch weiter erhöhen.
  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 
    0.002757334 = product of:
  0.019301336 = sum of:
    0.013948122 = weight(_text_:web in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013948122 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.0053532133 = product of:
      0.016059639 = sum of:
        0.016059639 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016059639 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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.
  9. Ernst, W.: Memorisierung des »Web« : von der emphatischen Archivierung zur Zwischenarchivierung der Gegenwart (2015) 0.00 
    0.0021134596 = product of:
  0.029588435 = sum of:
    0.029588435 = weight(_text_:web in 2530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029588435 = score(doc=2530,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2530, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2530)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Seitdem Texte nicht mehr nur auf gedruckten Buchstaben, sondern in elektronischer Form auf dem flüchtigen alphanumerischen Code beruhen, wandeln sich auch die Risiken und Chancen des Sammlungsauftrages von Bibliotheken. Der ungeheure Zuwachs an nahezu unverzüglichem Informationszugang im Internet geht mit einer teilweise bewusst in Kauf genommenen Fokussierung auf erweiterte Gegenwart zuungunsten nachhaltiger Speicherung einher. Wo an die Stelle der Gesamterfassung von Publikationen der Gegenwart notwendig die stichprobenhafte Archivierung in Intervallen tritt, zeichnet sich ein neues Verhältnis von Zeit und kulturellem Gedächtnis ab. In der Zeitökonomie dynamischer Zwischenarchivierung obliegt es den Bibliotheken, sich diesem Trend zu öffnen und gleichzeitig zu widerstehen. Es bedarf einerseits der institutionell gesicherten Orte, nicht nur die Nutzeroberflächen des Web, sondern auch ihre Bedingungen (Quellcode bis hin zur Emulation von Computerhardware) für künftige Kulturkritik nachvollziehbar zu bewahren; andererseits gilt es mit neuen Formen der algorithmischen Erschließung solcher Big Data zu experimentieren.
  10. Spiecker, C.; Schulze, C.: "Was gestatten deutsche Verlage ihren Autoren?" : Der deutschsprachige Zugang zu den Open-Access-Informationen der SHERPA/RoMEO-Datenbank (2010) 0.00 
    0.0019709074 = product of:
  0.027592704 = sum of:
    0.027592704 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 3681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027592704 = score(doc=3681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.22680065 = fieldWeight in 3681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3681)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Series
    Themen: Digitale Bibliothek
  11. Brown, D.J.: Access to scientific research : challenges facing communications in STM (2016) 0.00 
    0.0019178487 = product of:
  0.01342494 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=3769,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
    0.0053532133 = product of:
      0.016059639 = sum of:
        0.016059639 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016059639 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3769, 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=3769)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The debate about access to scientific research raises questions about the current effectiveness of scholarly communication processes. This book explores, from an independent point of view, the current state of the STM publishing market, new publishing technologies and business models as well as the information habit of researchers, the politics of research funders, and the demand for scientific research as a public good. The book also investigates the democratisation of science including how the information needs of knowledge workers outside academia can be embraced in future.
    Content
    Inhalt: Chapter 1. Background -- Chapter 2. Definitions -- Chapter 3. Aims, Objectives, and Methodology -- Chapter 4. Setting the Scene -- Chapter 5. Information Society -- Chapter 6. Drivers for Change -- Chapter 7 A Dysfunctional STM Scene? -- Chapter 8. Comments on the Dysfunctionality of STM Publishing -- Chapter 9. The Main Stakeholders -- Chapter 10. Search and Discovery -- Chapter 11. Impact of Google -- Chapter 12. Psychological Issues -- Chapter 13. Users of Research Output -- Chapter 14. Underlying Sociological Developments -- Chapter 15. Social Media and Social Networking -- Chapter 16. Forms of Article Delivery -- Chapter 17. Future Communication Trends -- Chapter 18. Academic Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 19. Unaffiliated Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 20. The Professions -- Chapter 21. Small and Medium Enterprises -- Chapter 22. Citizen Scientists -- Chapter 23. Learned Societies -- Chapter 24. Business Models -- Chapter 25. Open Access -- Chapter 26. Political Initiatives -- Chapter 27. Summary and Conclusions -- Chapter 28. Research Questions Addressed
    Series
    Global studies in libraries and information ; Volume 2
  12. Steinke, T.: Webarchivierung als internationale Aufgabe (2015) 0.00 
    0.0017435154 = product of:
  0.024409214 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Das Web selbst ist international, und daher kann eine umfassende Webarchivierung nur in internationaler Zusammenarbeit gelingen. Eine breite Webarchivierung erfolgt vor allem durch die US-amerikanische Organisation Internet Archive und durch Nationalbibliotheken auf nationaler Ebene. Der Artikel stellt einige dieser Webarchive vor. Eine übergreifende Zusammenarbeit sowohl auf technischer als auch organisatorischer Ebene findet im International Internet Preservation Consortium (IIPC) statt. In Arbeitsgruppen und bei Kongressen arbeiten im IIPC Webarchive an Software-Werkzeugen und der Organisation übergreifender Sammlungen. Auch im Bereich der Standardisierung gibt es eine internationale Zusammenarbeit bei der Etablierung einheitlicher Archivformate und gemeinsamer Indikatoren für Statistiken in Webarchiven.
  13. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.00 
    0.001676621 = product of:
  0.011736346 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1614-1628
  14. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.00 
    0.001676621 = product of:
  0.011736346 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635
  15. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.00 
    0.001676621 = product of:
  0.011736346 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431
  16. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.00 
    0.001676621 = product of:
  0.011736346 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.6, S.674-687
  17. Lorenz, D.: Occupy Publishing! : Wie veröffentlichen wir in Zukunft? (2012) 0.00 
    0.0014944416 = product of:
  0.020922182 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 5596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=5596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5596, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5596)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    "Über 1000 Mathematikerinnen und Mathematiker aus aller Welt erklären öffentlich ihren Boykott des Elsevier-Verlages auf der Webseite http://thecostofknowledge.com, und unter dem gleichen Namen veröffentlichen 34 namhafte Mathematiker einen offenen Brief, in dem sie in klarer Sprache den Verlag kritisieren (siehe auch die deutsche Übersetzung des offenen Briefes ab Seite 16 dieses Heftes): "What all the signatories do agree on is that Elsevier is an exemplar of everything that is wrong with the current system of commercial publication of mathematics journals, and we will no longer acquiesce to Elsevier's harvesting of the value of our and our colleagues' work." Wie konnte es dazu kommen? Die Geschichte beginnt wahrscheinlich schon dent Ende der 90er Jahre von Rob Kirby, doch mit Hilfe des Web 2.0 hat vor langer Zeit, zuminmit einem offenen Brief sie in den vergangenen Monaten erstaunlich an Fahrt gewonnen. Der Beitrag bietet eine kurze Chronologie der Ereignisse."
  18. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.00 
    0.0013518904 = product of:
  0.018926464 = sum of:
    0.018926464 = product of:
      0.056779392 = sum of:
        0.056779392 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056779392 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
  19. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.00 
    0.0013412967 = product of:
  0.009389076 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
    0.0053532133 = product of:
      0.016059639 = sum of:
        0.016059639 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016059639 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575
  20. Engels, T.C.E; Istenic Starcic, A.; Kulczycki, E.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.: Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? (2018) 0.00 
    0.0013412967 = product of:
  0.009389076 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4631, 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=4631)
    0.0053532133 = product of:
      0.016059639 = sum of:
        0.016059639 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016059639 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, 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=4631)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 70(2018) no.6, S.592-607

Authors

Languages

  • e 50
  • d 40

Types

  • a 86
  • el 10
  • m 2
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications