Search (72 results, page 1 of 4)

0.07103566 = product of:
  0.14207132 = sum of:
    0.07190624 = weight(_text_:management in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07190624 = score(doc=4198,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.45151538 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.07016508 = sum of:
      0.02535474 = weight(_text_:science in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02535474 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.044810344 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044810344 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.363-374

Theme

Content Management System

0.043636583 = product of:
  0.087273166 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.057619542 = sum of:
      0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025612153 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Object

Social Science Research Network

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635

0.043268 = product of:
  0.086536 = sum of:
    0.071168706 = weight(_text_:management in 1553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071168706 = score(doc=1553,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 1553, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1553)
    0.015367293 = product of:
      0.030734586 = sum of:
        0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 1553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030734586 = score(doc=1553,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 1553, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Electronic documents produced in business processes are valuable information resources for organizations. In many cases they have to be accessible long after the life of the business processes or information systems in connection with which they were created. To improve the management and preservation of documents, organizations are deploying Extensible Markup Language (XML) as a standardized format for documents. The goal of this paper is to increase understanding of XML document management and provide a framework to enable the analysis and description of the management of XML documents throughout their life. We followed the design science approach. We introduce a document life cycle model consisting of five phases. For each of the phases we describe the typical activities related to the management of XML documents. Furthermore, we also identify the typical actors, systems, and types of content items associated with the activities of the phases. We demonstrate the use of the model in two case studies: one concerning the State Budget Proposal of the Finnish government and the other concerning a faculty council meeting agenda at a university.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.12, S.2564-2580

0.03721175 = product of:
  0.0744235 = sum of:
    0.023722902 = weight(_text_:management in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023722902 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.050700597 = sum of:
      0.025094684 = weight(_text_:science in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025094684 = score(doc=4051,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20163277 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.025605911 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025605911 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Footnote

Beitrag eines Special issue on "The reward system of science".

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575

0.031908616 = product of:
  0.06381723 = sum of:
    0.023722902 = weight(_text_:management in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023722902 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.04009433 = sum of:
      0.014488421 = weight(_text_:science in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014488421 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.025605911 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025605911 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 70(2018) no.6, S.592-607

0.02282866 = product of:
  0.04565732 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
    0.016003694 = product of:
      0.03200739 = sum of:
        0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03200739 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.6, S.674-687

0.019354446 = product of:
  0.03870889 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
    0.009055263 = product of:
      0.018110527 = sum of:
        0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018110527 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper explores the usefulness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar (GS) for evaluating open access (OA) policies that demand a deposit in a repository. A case study was designed focusing on 762 financed articles with a project of FIS-2012 of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish national health service's main management body for health research. Its finance is therefore subject to the Spanish Government OA mandate. A search was carried out for full-text OA copies of the 762 articles using the four tools being evaluated and with identification of the repository housing these items. Of the 762 articles concerned, 510 OA copies were found of 353 unique articles (46.3%) in 68 repositories. OA copies were found of 81.9% of the articles in PubMed Central and copies of 49.5% of the articles in an institutional repository (IR). BASE and GS identified 93.5% of the articles and OpenAIRE 86.7%. Recolecta identified just 62.2% of the articles deposited in a Spanish IR. BASE achieved the greatest success, by locating copies deposited in IR, while GS found those deposited in disciplinary repositories. None of the tools identified copies of all the articles, so they need to be used in a complementary way when evaluating OA policies.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.4, S.619-622

0.017285863 = product of:
  0.06914345 = sum of:
    0.06914345 = sum of:
      0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030734586 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
      0.038408864 = weight(_text_:22 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038408864 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler propagieren die demokratische dezentrale Selbstorganisation der globalen Wissenschaftskommunikation als Blockchain. Bericht über die "1st international Conference on Blockchain for Science, Research and Knowledge Creation", Berlin, 5. und 6. November 2018. Sie wollen die Wissenschaftskommunikation und ihr Publikationswesen revolutionieren. Der Wissensaustausch soll ohne Barrieren fließen. Forschende sollen ihre Datensammlungen, Zwischenergebnisse und Fragen von Beginn des Forschungsprozesses an urheberrechtssicher direkt publizieren und diskutieren können; auch Fehlversuche und negative Ergebnisse. Sie haben ganz viel Enthusiasmus, frische Ideen und mit Blockchain ein neuartiges Datenverarbeitungskonzept, das mit dem bestehenden Internet als Transportfundament den weltweiten Datenverkehr unabhängig von zentralen Unternehmensplattformen möglich macht (zumindest technisch). Dieser kryptogesicherten Blockdatenverarbeitung mit verteilten Transaktionsregistern (sorry, es geht nicht kürzer) schreiben sie das Potential zu, in einem autonom geführten Netzwerk, in dem alle Teilnehmenden gleichberechtigt sind und miteinander agieren können, der Wissenschaft die Hoheit über ihren weltweiten Informationsaustausch geben zu können. Die Rede ist von der "Blockchain One Community", Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler aus verschiedenen Disziplinen und Ländern, die sich für eine "Blockchain for Science" engagieren. Die Kühnsten unter ihnen streben eine weltweite Wissenschaftskommunikation in demokratischer Selbstorganisation an. Blockchains nutzen kann, wer einen Internetzugang hat.

Source

B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.1, S.25-39

0.014500752 = product of:
  0.05800301 = sum of:
    0.05800301 = sum of:
      0.0323971 = weight(_text_:science in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0323971 = score(doc=3769,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.26030678 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
      0.025605911 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025605911 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

LCSH

Communication in science
Science publishing

Subject

Communication in science
Science publishing

0.0144048855 = product of:
  0.057619542 = sum of:
    0.057619542 = sum of:
      0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025612153 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.012529479 = product of:
  0.050117917 = sum of:
    0.050117917 = sum of:
      0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018110527 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431

0.011316321 = product of:
  0.045265283 = sum of:
    0.045265283 = product of:
      0.09053057 = sum of:
        0.09053057 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09053057 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

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

0.009602216 = product of:
  0.038408864 = sum of:
    0.038408864 = product of:
      0.07681773 = sum of:
        0.07681773 = weight(_text_:22 in 4208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07681773 = score(doc=4208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4208, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4208)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 4.2015 17:22:03

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

0.007413407 = product of:
  0.029653627 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 2612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=2612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2612)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.007413407 = product of:
  0.029653627 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=2707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.6, S.1206-1240

0.006401478 = product of:
  0.025605911 = sum of:
    0.025605911 = product of:
      0.051211823 = sum of:
        0.051211823 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051211823 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22

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

Series

Science and technology

0.006273671 = product of:
  0.025094684 = sum of:
    0.025094684 = product of:
      0.05018937 = sum of:
        0.05018937 = weight(_text_:science in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05018937 = score(doc=2986,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.005601293 = product of:
  0.022405172 = sum of:
    0.022405172 = product of:
      0.044810344 = sum of:
        0.044810344 = weight(_text_:22 in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044810344 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 765, 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=765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.5, S.397-404