Search (75 results, page 4 of 4)

0.0016464829 = product of:
  0.014818345 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=805,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

A publishing giant goes after the authors of its journals' papers

0.001577849 = product of:
  0.014200641 = sum of:
    0.014200641 = weight(_text_:of in 3562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014200641 = score(doc=3562,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 3562, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3562)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

With the start of the new year 2017, about 60 universities and other research institutions in Germany are set to lose subscription access to one of the main STEM publishers, Elsevier. The reason being negotiations of the DEAL consortium (600 institutions in total) with the publisher. In the run-up to these negotiations, all members of the consortium were urged to not renew their individual subscriptions with the publisher and most institutions apparently followed this call. As the first Elsevier offer was rejected by DEAL and further negotiations have been postponed until 2017, the participating institutions whose individual contract runs out this year will be without continued subscription access - as long as they don't cave in and broker new individual contracts. At first, this may seem like a massive problem for all students and faculty at these institutions. However, there are now so many alternative access strategies, that the well-informed scholar may not even notice much of a difference. Here are ten different options, in no particular order.

0.001577849 = product of:
  0.014200641 = sum of:
    0.014200641 = weight(_text_:of in 5596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014200641 = score(doc=5596,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 5596, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5596)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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."

0.0014403724 = product of:
  0.012963352 = sum of:
    0.012963352 = weight(_text_:of in 2850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012963352 = score(doc=2850,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 2850, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2850)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Research articles disseminate the knowledge produced by the scientific community. Access to this literature is crucial for researchers and the general public. Apparently, "bibliogifts" are available online for free from text-sharing platforms. However, little is known about such platforms. What is the size of the underlying digital libraries? What are the topics covered? Where do these documents originally come from? This article reports on a study of the Library Genesis platform (LibGen). The 25 million documents (42 terabytes) it hosts and distributes for free are mostly research articles, textbooks, and books in English. The article collection stems from isolated, but massive, article uploads (71%) in line with a "biblioleaks" scenario, as well as from daily crowdsourcing (29%) by worldwide users of platforms such as Reddit Scholar and Sci-Hub. By relating the DOIs registered at CrossRef and those cached at LibGen, this study reveals that 36% of all DOI articles are available for free at LibGen. This figure is even higher (68%) for three major publishers: Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley. More research is needed to understand to what extent researchers and the general public have recourse to such text-sharing platforms and why.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.874-884

0.0014403724 = product of:
  0.012963352 = sum of:
    0.012963352 = weight(_text_:of in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012963352 = score(doc=4015,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 4015, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4015)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Within science, citation counts are widely used to estimate research impact but publication delays mean that they are not useful for recent research. This gap can be filled by Mendeley reader counts, which are valuable early impact indicators for academic articles because they appear before citations and correlate strongly with them. Nevertheless, it is not known how Mendeley readership counts accumulate within the year of publication, and so it is unclear how soon they can be used. In response, this paper reports a longitudinal weekly study of the Mendeley readers of articles in 6 library and information science journals from 2016. The results suggest that Mendeley readers accrue from when articles are first available online and continue to steadily build. For journals with large publication delays, articles can already have substantial numbers of readers by their publication date. Thus, Mendeley reader counts may even be useful as early impact indicators for articles before they have been officially published in a journal issue. If field normalized indicators are needed, then these can be generated when journal issues are published using the online first date.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.158-167

0.001425896 = product of:
  0.0128330635 = sum of:
    0.0128330635 = weight(_text_:of in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128330635 = score(doc=3371,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

After a year of development, the library at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has launched a repository, called the Illinois Data Bank (https://databank.illinois.edu/), to provide Illinois researchers with a free, self-serve publishing platform that centralizes, preserves, and provides persistent and reliable access to Illinois research data. This article presents a holistic view of development by discussing our overarching technical, policy, and interface strategies. By openly presenting our design decisions, the rationales behind those decisions, and associated challenges this paper aims to contribute to the library community's work to develop repository services that meet growing data preservation and sharing needs.

0.0014112709 = product of:
  0.012701439 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 2253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=2253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2253)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2390-2391

0.0014112709 = product of:
  0.012701439 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 3249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=3249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3249)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.0014112709 = product of:
  0.012701439 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 3592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=3592,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3592, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3592)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

We present the results of running 4 different papers through the automated filtering system used by the open access preprint server "arXiv" to classify papers and implement quality control barriers. The exercise was carried out in order to assess whether these highly sophisticated, state-of-the-art filters can distinguish between papers that are controversial or have gone past their "sell-by date," and otherwise normal papers. We conclude that not even the arXiv filters, which are otherwise successful in filtering fringe-topic papers, can fully acquire "Domain-Specific Discrimination" and thus distinguish technical papers that are taken seriously by an expert community from those that are not. Finally, we discuss the implications this has for citizen and policy-maker engagement with the Primary Source Knowledge of a technical domain.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1105-1110

0.001330559 = product of:
  0.011975031 = sum of:
    0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011975031 = score(doc=2986,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff

0.001330559 = product of:
  0.011975031 = sum of:
    0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011975031 = score(doc=4686,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

British novelist E.M. Forster once complained that long books "are usually overpraised" because "the reader wishes to convince others and himself that he has not wasted his time." To test his theory we collected reader ratings for 737 books tagged as "classic literature" on Goodreads.com, a review aggregator with 80m members. The bias towards chunky tomes was substantial. Slim volumes of 100 to 200 pages scored only 3.87 out of 5, whereas those over 1,000 pages scored 4.19. Longer is better, say the readers.

0.0011760591 = product of:
  0.010584532 = sum of:
    0.010584532 = weight(_text_:of in 4625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010584532 = score(doc=4625,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 4625, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4625)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The Washington Post reports that the US Justice Department has launched a criminal and intelligence investigation into Alexandra Elbakyan, founder of Sci-Hub

0.001152298 = product of:
  0.010370681 = sum of:
    0.010370681 = weight(_text_:of in 3838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010370681 = score(doc=3838,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.16928169 = fieldWeight in 3838, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3838)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Hybrid open access refers to articles freely accessible via the Internet but which originate from an academic journal that provides most of its content via subscription. The effect of hybrid open access on citation counts and author behavior in the field of chemistry is something that has not been widely studied. We compared 814 open access articles and 27,621 subscription access articles published from 2006 through 2011 in American Chemical Society journals. As expected, the 2 comparison groups are not equal in all respects. Cumulative citation data were analyzed from years 2-5 following an article's publication date. A citation advantage for open access articles was correlated with the journal impact factor (IF) in low and medium IF journals, but not in high IF journals. Open access articles have a 24% higher mean citation rate than their subscription counterparts in low IF journals (confidence limits 8-42%, p = .0022) and similarly, a 26% higher mean citation rate in medium IF journals (confidence limits 14-40%, p < .001). Open access articles in high IF journals had no significant difference compared to subscription access articles (13% lower mean citation rate, confidence limits -27-3%, p = .10). These results are correlative, not causative, and may not be completely due to an open access effect. Authors of the open access articles were also surveyed to determine why they chose a hybrid open access option, paid the required article processing charge, and whether they believed it was money well spent. Authors primarily chose open access because of funding mandates; however, most considered the money well spent because open access increases information access to the scientific community and the general public, and potentially increases citations to their scholarship.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2501-2510

6.652795E-4 = product of:
  0.0059875157 = sum of:
    0.0059875157 = weight(_text_:of in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059875157 = score(doc=3250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.09773483 = fieldWeight in 3250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3250)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

Inhalt: Teil 1: Das wissenschaftliche Kommunikationssystem im Wandel Von Fach zu Fach verschieden. Diversität im wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystem - Rosenbaum, Konstanze (S. 41-74) / Open Access und digitale Publikation aus der Perspektive von Wissenschaftsverlagen - Taubert, Niels (S. 75-102) / Zur Situation und Entwicklung wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken - Weingart, Peter (S. 103-122) / Ein wissenschaftspolitisches Beteiligungsexperiment: Ergebnisse und Bewertung der Online-Konsultation "Publikationssystem" - Taubert, Niels / Schön, Kevin (S. 123-144) Teil 2: Rahmenbedingungen Empfehlungen, Stellungnahmen, Deklarationen und Aktivitäten wissenschaftspolitischer Akteure zur Gestaltung des wissenschaftlichen Kommunikationssystems - Herb, Ulrich ( S. 147-178) / Open Access: Effects on Publishing Behaviour of Scientists, Peer Review and Interrelations with Performance Measures - Ball, David (S. 179-210) / Das Urheberrecht und der Wandel des wissenschaftlichen Kommunikationssystems - Peukert, Alexander / Sonnenberg, Marcus (S. 211-242) /
Teil 3: Visionen Einleitung: Visionen zur Zukunft des Publizierens in der Wissenschaft (S. 245-246) / Elektronisches Publizieren, Open Access, Open Science und ähnliche Träume - Grötschel, Martin (S. 247-262) / A Vision of Scientific Communication - Kliegl, Reinhold (S. 263-270) / Methodischer Optimismus vor digitaler Zukunft - Gerhardt, Volker (S. 271-282) / Vertrauen, Qualitätssicherung und Open Access - Predatory Journals und die Zukunft des wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystems - Weingart, Peter (S. 283-290) / Publizieren in der Soziologie im Jahr 2030 - Taubert, Niels (S. 291-296) Vgl. https://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/463455. DOI: 10.1515/9783110448115.

5.8802956E-4 = product of:
  0.005292266 = sum of:
    0.005292266 = weight(_text_:of in 5427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005292266 = score(doc=5427,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.086386204 = fieldWeight in 5427, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5427)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.