Search (98 results, page 5 of 5)

0.0011424132 = product of:
  0.017136198 = sum of:
    0.017136198 = weight(_text_:und in 2567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017136198 = score(doc=2567,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061853286 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027907511 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 2567, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2567)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Während sich allmählich ein wissenschaftspolitischer Konsens für die Unterstützung von Open Access formiert, ist die Akzeptanz unter Wissenschaftlern noch stark vom jeweils betrachteten Fachgebiet abhängig. Dieser Artikel beruht auf einer Umfrage unter Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlern der Universität Regensburg. Eruiert wurden die Einstellungen der Wissenschaftler zu Open Access - unter spezieller Berücksichtigung der lokalen Open Access Dienstleistungen, welche die Universitätsbibliothek Regensburg mit einem neu gestalteten Publikationsserver anbietet.

0.0011424132 = product of:
  0.017136198 = sum of:
    0.017136198 = weight(_text_:und in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017136198 = score(doc=945,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061853286 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027907511 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Am 21. Januar 2012 trat Timothy Gowers auf seinem Blog eine Lawine los: Unter der Überschrift "Elsevier - mein Anteil an seinem Niedergang" griff er öffentlich das große niederländisch-britische Verlagshaus Reed-Elsevier an. Seinem Boykottaufruf sind inzwischen rund 13.000 Unterstützer gefolgt. Gleichzeitig wird Open Access heftig diskutiert. Das Thema gilt als ebenso trendy wir komplex und umstritten. Worum geht es überhaupt? Und wie könnte das wissenschaftliche Publizieren "begrünt" oder "vergoldet" in Zukunft aussehen?

0.0011424132 = product of:
  0.017136198 = sum of:
    0.017136198 = weight(_text_:und in 2701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017136198 = score(doc=2701,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061853286 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027907511 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 2701, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2701)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Je höher die Ablehnungsrate eines wissenschaftlichen Journals, desto exklusiver aus Sicht von Autoren das Privileg einer akzeptierten Einreichung. Und - so die Annahme - umso größer die Qualität der publizierenden Journale. Eine Untersuchung widerspricht nun dieser landläufigen Meinung und spielt in die Hände von Kritikern wie Prof. Gerhard Fröhlich von der Universität Linz, der Ablehnungsquoten als reinen Prestigeschmuck ansieht.

0.0010097602 = product of:
  0.015146403 = sum of:
    0.015146403 = weight(_text_:und in 2512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015146403 = score(doc=2512,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061853286 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027907511 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 2512, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2512)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/forschung-und-lehre/baden-wuerttemberg-entrechtet-seine-wissenschaftlichen-autoren-13988149-p3.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_3

0.0010097602 = product of:
  0.015146403 = sum of:
    0.015146403 = weight(_text_:und in 2699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015146403 = score(doc=2699,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061853286 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027907511 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 2699, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2699)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Die Digitalisierung verändert den Hochschulalltag. Studenten verfolgen Vorlesungen online, Texte stehen im Netz. Es entsteht aber eine Kluft zwischen Studierenden mit vielen technischen Mitteln und denen ohne.

9.996116E-4 = product of:
  0.014994173 = sum of:
    0.014994173 = weight(_text_:und in 959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014994173 = score(doc=959,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061853286 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027907511 = queryNorm
        0.24241515 = fieldWeight in 959, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=959)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Open Access kennt verschiedene Spielarten. Der grüne Open Access ist in der Regel kostenfrei, denn hier werden Nutzern bereits in wissenschaftlichen Journalen publizierte Artikel in einer Art Zweitverwertung auf Open-Access-Servern entgeltfrei bereitgestellt. Im goldenen Open Access hingegen finden sich Journale, die Artikel ohne Publikationsgebühren im Open Access veröffentlichen, und solche, die für die Veröffentlichung der Texte eine sogenannte Article Processing Charge (APC) erheben. Daneben existiert noch der hybride Open Access: Dabei werden einzelne Artikel aus Journalen, die nicht im Open Access erscheinen, gegen entsprechende Zahlungen für die entgeltfreie Verfügbarkeit freigekauft.

9.996116E-4 = product of:
  0.014994173 = sum of:
    0.014994173 = weight(_text_:und in 4969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014994173 = score(doc=4969,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061853286 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027907511 = queryNorm
        0.24241515 = fieldWeight in 4969, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4969)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

An vielen wissenschaftlichen Institutionen gibt es Dokumentenserver (Repositorien), auf welchen Forschungsarbeiten veröffentlicht werden können. Diese sind in der Regel im Internet frei zugänglich (Open Access). Allerdings existiert kein zentrales Verzeichnis für die Publikationen, die auf solchen Repositorien veröffentlicht sind, so dass nicht von vornherein klar ist, inwieweit diese Forschungsartikel bei einer Recherche aufgefunden werden können. Dieser Aufsatz enthält Grundsätzliches zum Datenaustausch zwischen Repositorien und Suchdiensten sowie eine exemplarische Untersuchung zur Auffindbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Artikel in Repositorien anhand einiger Beispiele. Ergänzend wird zum Vergleich in kleinerem Umfang die Auffindbarkeit von Artikeln aus wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften betrachtet.

8.8225264E-4 = product of:
  0.013233789 = sum of:
    0.013233789 = product of:
      0.026467578 = sum of:
        0.026467578 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026467578 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09772735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.027907511 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, 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=4198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07

8.7447796E-4 = product of:
  0.013117169 = sum of:
    0.013117169 = weight(_text_:und in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013117169 = score(doc=2871,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061853286 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027907511 = queryNorm
        0.21206908 = fieldWeight in 2871, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2871)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Die Online-Plattform Sci-Hub überwindet die Paywalls der Verlage und baut eine riesige "Schattenbibliothek" der Wissenschaft auf. Auch Gerichte können sie bislang nicht stoppen. Das hatte sich Elsevier sicherlich anders vorgestellt. Der große Wissenschaftsverlag hat im Juni 2015 Klage gegen die Online-Plattformen Sci-Hub und LibGen eingereicht. Der Grund: Dort war eine riesige Anzahl akademischer Publikationen frei und kostenlos zugänglich gemacht worden. Sci-Hub bot Nutzern Zugriff auf Millionen Veröffentlichungen, viele davon urheberrechtlich geschützt. Seit nun letzte Woche die Website Bigthink.com ausführlich über das Verfahren gegen Sci-Hub vor einem US-Bundesbezirksgerichts in New York berichtet hat, verbreitet sich die Nachricht vom "Pirate Bay für die Wissenschaft" in den sozialen Netzwerken rasant. Eine bessere Werbemaßnahme als das Gerichtsverfahren hätte sich Sci-Hub kaum wünschen können. Elsevier ist einer der größten akademischen Verlage der Welt. Nach Presseberichten macht das Unternehmen mit seinen mehr als 2200 Journalen einen jährlichen Reinerlös von über einer Milliarde Dollar. Doch es sieht seine Geschäfte offenbar durch Sci-Hub bedroht. Mit aktuell mehr als 49 Millionen Veröffentlichungen, die 35 Terabyte an Daten umfassen, wie der (nicht verifizierte) Twitter-Account @Sci_Hub schreibt, umfasst die "Schattenbibliothek" wohl eine der größten je vorhandenen Sammlungen akademischer Literatur.

8.078082E-4 = product of:
  0.012117122 = sum of:
    0.012117122 = weight(_text_:und in 4501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012117122 = score(doc=4501,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061853286 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027907511 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 4501, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4501)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 62(2011) H.4, S.159-166

6.3018047E-4 = product of:
  0.009452706 = sum of:
    0.009452706 = product of:
      0.018905412 = sum of:
        0.018905412 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018905412 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09772735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.027907511 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

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.

6.3018047E-4 = product of:
  0.009452706 = sum of:
    0.009452706 = product of:
      0.018905412 = sum of:
        0.018905412 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018905412 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09772735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.027907511 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

6.3018047E-4 = product of:
  0.009452706 = sum of:
    0.009452706 = product of:
      0.018905412 = sum of:
        0.018905412 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018905412 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09772735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.027907511 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

6.3018047E-4 = product of:
  0.009452706 = sum of:
    0.009452706 = product of:
      0.018905412 = sum of:
        0.018905412 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018905412 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09772735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.027907511 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

5.0414435E-4 = product of:
  0.007562165 = sum of:
    0.007562165 = product of:
      0.01512433 = sum of:
        0.01512433 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01512433 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09772735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.027907511 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

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.

5.0414435E-4 = product of:
  0.007562165 = sum of:
    0.007562165 = product of:
      0.01512433 = sum of:
        0.01512433 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01512433 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09772735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.027907511 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

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

5.0414435E-4 = product of:
  0.007562165 = sum of:
    0.007562165 = product of:
      0.01512433 = sum of:
        0.01512433 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01512433 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09772735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.027907511 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

5.0414435E-4 = product of:
  0.007562165 = sum of:
    0.007562165 = product of:
      0.01512433 = sum of:
        0.01512433 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01512433 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09772735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.027907511 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22