Search (34 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Laakso, M.; Matthias, L.; Jahn, N.: Open is not forever : a study of vanished open access journals (2021) 0.00 
    0.0016571716 = product of:
  0.0033143433 = sum of:
    0.0033143433 = product of:
      0.0066286866 = sum of:
        0.0066286866 = weight(_text_:a in 333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0066286866 = score(doc=333,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 333, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The preservation of the scholarly record has been a point of concern since the beginning of knowledge production. With print publications, the responsibility rested primarily with librarians, but the shift toward digital publishing and, in particular, the introduction of open access (OA) have caused ambiguity and complexity. Consequently, the long-term accessibility of journals is not always guaranteed, and they can even disappear from the web completely. The focus of this exploratory study is on the phenomenon of vanished journals, something that has not been carried out before. For the analysis, we consulted several major bibliographic indexes, such as Scopus, Ulrichsweb, and the Directory of Open Access Journals, and traced the journals through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. We found 174 OA journals that, through lack of comprehensive and open archives, vanished from the web between 2000 and 2019, spanning all major research disciplines and geographic regions of the world. Our results raise vital concern for the integrity of the scholarly record and highlight the urgency to take collaborative action to ensure continued access and prevent the loss of more scholarly knowledge. We encourage those interested in the phenomenon of vanished journals to use the public dataset for their own research.
    Footnote
    Vgl. dazu den Letter to the editor: Shelomi, M.: Comment on "Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals". In. JASIST 72(2021) no.9, S.1113-1114 [https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24543]: "One reason these journals may have vanished is that they were predatory journals: a possibility the original paper did not consider." Dazu die Erwiderung der Autoren: Response to comment on "Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals". In: JASIST 72(2021) no.9, S.1115-1116 [https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24542].
    Type
    a
  2. Hobert, A.; Jahn, N.; Mayr, P.; Schmidt, B.; Taubert, N.: Open access uptake in Germany 2010-2018 : adoption in a diverse research landscape (2021) 0.00 
    0.0015127839 = product of:
  0.0030255679 = sum of:
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060511357 = score(doc=250,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.
    Type
    a
  3. Moore, S.A.: Revisiting "the 1990s debutante" : scholar-led publishing and the prehistory of the open access movement (2020) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=5920,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The movement for open access publishing (OA) is often said to have its roots in the scientific disciplines, having been popularized by scientific publishers and formalized through a range of top-down policy interventions. But there is an often-neglected prehistory of OA that can be found in the early DIY publishers of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Managed entirely by working academics, these journals published research in the humanities and social sciences and stand out for their unique set of motivations and practices. This article explores this separate lineage in the history of the OA movement through a critical-theoretical analysis of the motivations and practices of the early scholar-led publishers. Alongside showing the involvement of the humanities and social sciences in the formation of OA, the analysis reveals the importance that these journals placed on experimental practices, critique of commercial publishing, and the desire to reach new audiences. Understood in today's context, this research is significant for adding complexity to the history of OA, which policymakers, advocates, and publishing scholars should keep in mind as OA goes mainstream.
    Type
    a
  4. Fang, Z.; Dudek, J.; Costas, R.: ¬The stability of Twitter metrics : a study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications (2020) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=35,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study investigated the stability of Twitter counts of scientific publications over time. For this, we conducted an analysis of the availability statuses of over 2.6 million Twitter mentions received by the 1,154 most tweeted scientific publications recorded by Altmetric.com up to October 2017. The results show that of the Twitter mentions for these highly tweeted publications, about 14.3% had become unavailable by April 2019. Deletion of tweets by users is the main reason for unavailability, followed by suspension and protection of Twitter user accounts. This study proposes two measures for describing the Twitter dissemination structures of publications: Degree of Originality (i.e., the proportion of original tweets received by an article) and Degree of Concentration (i.e., the degree to which retweets concentrate on a single original tweet). Twitter metrics of publications with relatively low Degree of Originality and relatively high Degree of Concentration were observed to be at greater risk of becoming unstable due to the potential disappearance of their Twitter mentions. In light of these results, we emphasize the importance of paying attention to the potential risk of unstable Twitter counts, and the significance of identifying the different Twitter dissemination structures when studying the Twitter metrics of scientific publications.
    Type
    a
  5. Brembs, B.: ¬Der Anfang vom Ende der Wissenschaftsverlage? (2023) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1056,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1056, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1056)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  6. Kim, L.; Portenoy, J.H.; West, J.D.; Stovel, K.W.: Scientific journals still matter in the era of academic search engines and preprint archives (2020) 0.00 
    0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 5961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=5961,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 5961, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Journals play a critical role in the scientific process because they evaluate the quality of incoming papers and offer an organizing filter for search. However, the role of journals has been called into question because new preprint archives and academic search engines make it easier to find articles independent of the journals that publish them. Research on this issue is complicated by the deeply confounded relationship between article quality and journal reputation. We present an innovative proxy for individual article quality that is divorced from the journal's reputation or impact factor: the number of citations to preprints posted on arXiv.org. Using this measure to study three subfields of physics that were early adopters of arXiv, we show that prior estimates of the effect of journal reputation on an individual article's impact (measured by citations) are likely inflated. While we find that higher-quality preprints in these subfields are now less likely to be published in journals compared to prior years, we find little systematic evidence that the role of journal reputation on article performance has declined.
    Type
    a
  7. Jahn, N.; Matthias, L.; Laakso, M.: Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher-provided metadata : an article-level study of Elsevier (2022) 0.00 
    0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=448,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    With the growth of open access (OA), the financial flows in scholarly journal publishing have become increasingly complex, but comprehensive data on and transparency of these flows are still lacking. The opacity is especially concerning for hybrid OA, where subscription-based journals publish individual articles as OA if an optional fee is paid. This study addresses the lack of transparency by leveraging Elsevier article metadata and provides the first publisher-level study of hybrid OA uptake and invoicing. Our results show that Elsevier's hybrid OA uptake has grown steadily but slowly from 2015 to 2019, doubling the number of hybrid OA articles published per year and increasing the share of OA articles in Elsevier's hybrid journals from 2.6 to 3.7% of all articles. Further, we find that most hybrid OA articles were invoiced directly to authors, followed by articles invoiced through agreements with research funders, institutions, or consortia, with only a few funding bodies driving hybrid OA uptake. As such, our findings point to the role of publishing agreements and OA policies in hybrid OA publishing. Our results further demonstrate the value of publisher-provided metadata to improve the transparency in scholarly publishing.
    Type
    a
  8. Herb, U.: Sci-hub = Spy-Hub? (2020) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 5333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=5333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  9. Frick, C.; Kaier, C.: Publikationskosten für Zeitschriftenartikel abseits von Open-Access-Publikationsfonds : Lost in Transformation? (2020) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  10. Graf, K.: Verschlimmbesserung total : die Stümper*innen von DigiZeitschriften haben sich selbst übertroffen (2022) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 599, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  11. Lauer, G.: Datentracking in den Wissenschaften : Wissenschaftsorganisationen und die bizarre Asymmetrie im wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystem (2022) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=931,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  12. James, J.E.: Pirate open access as electronic civil disobedience : is it ethical to breach the paywalls of monetized academic publishing? (2020) 0.00 
    0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=37,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  13. Kirsch, M.A.: Plan S in der Diskussion : Reaktionen aus der Wissenschaft auf die internationale Open-Access-Initiative (2020) 0.00 
    0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  14. Geschuhn, K.: Vertragsunterzeichnung Springer Nature und Projekt DEAL (2020) 0.00 
    6.765375E-4 = product of:
  0.001353075 = sum of:
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = weight(_text_:a in 5654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00270615 = score(doc=5654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 5654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Vgl. auch den Text in der Mail von A. Jobmann an Inetbib vom 14.01.2020: "nach mehrjährigen Verhandlungen kam es im Rahmen des Allianzprojektes DEAL am 15. Januar 2019 zu einem Vertragsabschluss mit dem Verlag Wiley und am 09.01.2020 zu einem ähnlichen Vertragsabschluss mit Springer Nature. Diese Verträge berechtigen die korrespondierenden Autorinnen und Autoren aller beteiligten Einrichtungen, ihre Publikationen in den Zeitschriften des Wiley-Verlages und Springer Nature unter einer freien Lizenz im Open Access zu publizieren. Das finanzielle Beteiligungsmodell für solche Transformationsverträge setzt derzeit noch bei den bisherigen Subskriptionszahlungen an die jeweiligen Verlage an. Mit der Open-Access-Transformation wird jedoch insbesondere die Umstellung des Standard-Geschäftsmodells für issenschaftliche Verlage von Subskription auf das Open-Access-Publizieren angestrebt. Damit verbunden sind Änderungen in den Geschäftsprozessen und der Abrechnungslogik, in deren Zentrum zukünftig die einzelne Publikation steht.

Authors

Languages

  • e 21
  • d 13

Types

Themes