Search (25 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0025237037 = product of:
  0.012618518 = sum of:
    0.012618518 = weight(_text_:of in 5677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012618518 = score(doc=5677,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 5677, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5677)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to understand if and how 2 proposed facets of self-identity (work-self and career-self) and journals' perceived quality (impact, visibility, and content quality) influence and explain the intention to publish in open access (OA) or nonopen access (non-OA) journals. This study integrates attitude and identity theory within a cross-sectional survey design. The sample consists of about 1,600 researchers in Norway, and the data were collected via e-mail invitation using a digital surveying tool and analyzed using structural equation modeling techniques. We determined that perceived impact-quality increases the intention to publish non-OA, while decreasing the intention to publish OA. Content quality is only associated with non-OA journals. Perceived visibility increases the intention to publish OA, while the opposite effect is found for non-OA. Career-self salience has the strongest effect on impact-quality, while content quality is most important when work-self is salient. This research contributes to a deeper understanding about how perceived quality influences intention to publish in OA and non-OA journals, and how self-identity salience affects different facets of perceived quality in valence and strength. Findings have implications for policy development, implementation, and assessment and may contribute to improving OA adoption.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.3, S.338-348

0.0025237037 = product of:
  0.012618518 = sum of:
    0.012618518 = weight(_text_:of in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012618518 = score(doc=750,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 750, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=750)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Although the open access citation advantage (OACA) has been discussed extensively, scholars lack a clear understanding of the mechanisms through which switching from subscription-based model to open access (OA) model affects the citation impact of a scholarly journal. Many journals have switched from subscription to OA, yet they later also flipped their preswitching articles (i.e., those under subscription model) to OA, thus leaving no subscription article to be compared with their postswitching OA counterparts. To detect the switching effect, our study instead focused on 60 journals that "reverse flipped" from OA to subscription. We use a difference-in-difference (DiD) analytical framework to analyze two propositions related to OACA, based on the bibliographic and citation data of pre- and postswitching publications in these journals. Our findings indicate that reverse flipping is unlikely to affect the journals' impact through changing the visibility of their articles. Instead, it could lead to a systematical shift in the submissions to the journals and thus considerably affect their impact. Our findings have important theoretical and practical implications for subsequent studies, funding agencies, and scholarly journals considering a reverse flip.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.11, S.1608-1620

0.0022572693 = product of:
  0.011286346 = sum of:
    0.011286346 = weight(_text_:of in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011286346 = score(doc=741,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 to 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon and Björk. Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data are drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data. Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC, and pricing trends. Half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation. The university sector may be the most promising approach to economically sustainable no-fee OA journals. Universities publish many OA journals, nearly half of OA articles, tend not to charge APCs and when APCs are charged, the prices are very low on average.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.12, S.1793-1805

0.0019153564 = product of:
  0.009576782 = sum of:
    0.009576782 = weight(_text_:of in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009576782 = score(doc=805,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Mailtext: "Im Rahmen der Schwerpunktinitiative "Digitale Information" der Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen wurden jetzt "Empfehlungen für transformative Zeitschriftenverträge mit Publikationsdienstleistern" veröffentlicht. Die formulierten Kriterien dienen als gemeinsamer und handlungsleitender Rahmen der Akteur:innen aus allen Wissenschaftsorganisationen, d.h. Hochschulen ebenso wie außeruniversitäre Forschungseinrichtungen, für Verhandlungen mit Publikationsdienstleistern. Dabei bildet die Forderung nach größtmöglicher Kostentransparenz und Kosteneffizienz im Gesamtsystem den Kern des Handelns der Wissenschaftsorganisationen im Kontext ihrer Open-Access-Strategie für die Jahre 2021-2025. Diese Kriterien gliedern sich in die Aspekte Transformation von Zeitschriften, Preisgestaltung, Transparenz, Workflow, Preprints, Qualitätssicherung, Metadaten und Schnittstellen, Statistiken, Tracking und Waiver. Deutsche Version: https://doi.org/10.48440/allianzoa.045 Englische Version: https://doi.org/10.48440/allianzoa.046 Siehe auch: Empfehlungen für transformative Zeitschriftenverträge mit Publikationsdienstleistern veröffentlicht https://www.allianzinitiative.de/2022/11/24/empfehlungen-fuer-transformative-zeitschriftenvertraege-mit-publikationsdienstleistern-veroeffentlicht/ Recommendations for Transformative Journal Agreements with Providers of Publishing Services published https://www.allianzinitiative.de/2022/11/24/recommendations-for-transformative-journal-agreements-with-providers-of-publishing-services-published/?lang=en"

9.0290763E-4 = product of:
  0.004514538 = sum of:
    0.004514538 = weight(_text_:of in 5654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004514538 = score(doc=5654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.06910896 = fieldWeight in 5654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5654)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Text der Mail: "Anknüpfend an das im August 2019 unterzeichnete Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) geben Springer Nature und MPDL Services GmbH im Namen von Projekt DEAL heute bekannt, dass der formale Vertrag der bislang weltweit umfangreichsten transformativen Open-Access-Vereinbarung unterzeichnet wurde. Seit dem 1. Januar 2020 werden Publikationen in Springer Nature-Subskriptionszeitschriften aus den mehr als 700 teilnahmeberechtigten deutschen wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen Open Access publiziert. Teilnehmende Institutionen erhalten umfassenden Zugang zum Zeitschriftenportfolio von Springer Nature. Lesen Sie die Pressemitteilung hier: https://www.hrk.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilung/meldung/springer-nature-und-projekt-deal-unterzeichnen-weltweit-umfangreichsten-open-access-transformationsv/ Der vollständige Vertragstext wird zusammen mit dem Start des Teilnahmeverfahrens für deutsche Einrichtungen in der zweiten Januarhälfte veröffentlicht. MPDL Services GmbH wird in den kommenden Wochen weitere Informationen zur Verfügung stellen und sich mit den teilnahmeberechtigten Institutionen in Verbindung setzen. Informationen zu den Eckpunkten der Vereinbarung finden Sie hier: https://www.projekt-deal.de/springer-nature-vertrag/ Bitte beachten Sie, dass der Start der Open-Access-Gold-Komponente auf den 1.8.2020 verschoben wurde."