Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.033074625 = sum of:
  0.011986194 = product of:
    0.047944777 = sum of:
      0.047944777 = weight(_text_:authors in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047944777 = score(doc=462,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 462, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=462)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021088429 = product of:
    0.042176858 = sum of:
      0.042176858 = weight(_text_:p in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042176858 = score(doc=462,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.22471954 = fieldWeight in 462, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=462)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

More than 15 years ago, A Companion to Digital Humanities marked out the area of digital humanities (DH) "as a discipline in its own right" (Schreibman et al., 2004, p. xxiii). In the years that followed, there is ample evidence that the DH domain, formed by the intersection of humanities disciplines and digital information technology, has undergone remarkable expansion. This growth is reflected in A New Companion to Digital Humanities (Schreibman et al., 2016). The extensively revised contents of the second edition were contributed by a global team of authors who are pioneers of innovative research in the field. Over this formative period, DH has become a widely recognized, impactful mode of scholarship and an institutional unit for collaborative, transdisciplinary, and computationally engaged research, teaching, and publication (Burdick et al., 2012; Svensson, 2010; Van Ruyskensvelde, 2014). The field of DH has advanced tremendously over the last decade and continues to expand. Meanwhile, competing definitions and approaches of DH scholars continue to spark debate. "Complexity" was a theme of the DH2019 international conference, as it demonstrates the multifaceted connections within DH scholarship today (Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations, 2019). Yet, while it is often assumed that the DH is in flux and not particularly fixed as an institutional or intellectual construct, there are also obviously touchstones within the DH field, most visibly in the relationship between traditional humanities disciplines and technological infrastructures. Thus, it is still meaningful to "bring together the humanistic and the digital through embracing a non-territorial and liminal zone" (Svensson, 2016, p. 477). This is the focus of this JASIST special issue, which mirrors the increasing attention on DH worldwide.

0.026897965 = sum of:
  0.011986194 = product of:
    0.047944777 = sum of:
      0.047944777 = weight(_text_:authors in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047944777 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014911771 = product of:
    0.029823542 = sum of:
      0.029823542 = weight(_text_:p in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029823542 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    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.

0.022367656 = product of:
  0.044735312 = sum of:
    0.044735312 = product of:
      0.089470625 = sum of:
        0.089470625 = weight(_text_:p in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089470625 = score(doc=134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.47670212 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.018639714 = product of:
  0.037279427 = sum of:
    0.037279427 = product of:
      0.074558854 = sum of:
        0.074558854 = weight(_text_:p in 83) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074558854 = score(doc=83,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 83, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=83)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012975438 = product of:
  0.025950875 = sum of:
    0.025950875 = product of:
      0.1038035 = sum of:
        0.1038035 = weight(_text_:authors in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1038035 = score(doc=1206,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Open Access (OA) publishing has progressed from an initial fringe idea to a still-growing, major component of modern academic communication. The proliferation of OA publishing presents a context to examine how new innovations and institutions develop. Based on analyses of 1,296,304 articles published in 83 OA journals, we analyze changes in the institutional status, gender, age, citedness, and geographical locations of authors over time. Generally, OA journals tended towards core-to-periphery diffusion patterns. Specifically, journal authors tended to decrease in high-status institutional affiliations, male and highly cited authors over time. Despite these general tendencies, there was substantial variation in the diffusion patterns of OA journals. Some journals exhibited no significant demographic changes, and a few exhibited periphery-to-core diffusion patterns. We find that although both highly and less-legitimate journals generally exhibit core-to-periphery diffusion patterns, there are still demographic differences between such journals. Institutional and cultural legitimacy-or lack thereof-affects the social and intellectual diffusion of new OA journals.

0.012376723 = product of:
  0.024753446 = sum of:
    0.024753446 = product of:
      0.04950689 = sum of:
        0.04950689 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04950689 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, 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=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.007491372 = product of:
  0.014982744 = sum of:
    0.014982744 = product of:
      0.059930976 = sum of:
        0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059930976 = score(doc=448,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  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.

0.007491372 = product of:
  0.014982744 = sum of:
    0.014982744 = product of:
      0.059930976 = sum of:
        0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059930976 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Inscriptions are defined as traces of scientific research production that are embodied in material artifacts and media, which encompass a wide variety of nonverbal forms such as graphs, diagrams, and tables. Inscription serves as a fundamental rhetorical device in research outputs and practices. As many inscriptions are deeply rooted in a scientific research paradigm, they can be used to evaluate the level of scientificity of a scientific field. This is specifically helpful to understand the relationships between research traditions in digital humanities (DH), a highly cross-disciplinary between various humanities and scientific traditions. This paper presents a quantitative, community-focused examination of how inscriptions are used in English-language research articles in DH journals. We randomly selected 252 articles published between 2011 and 2020 from a representative DH journal list, and manually classified the inscriptions and author domains in these publications. We found that inscriptions have been increasingly used during the past decade, and their uses are more intensive in publications led by STEM authors comparing to other domains. This study offers a timely survey of the disciplinary landscape of DH from the perspective of inscriptions and sheds light on how different research approaches collaborate and combat in the field of DH.

0.007491372 = product of:
  0.014982744 = sum of:
    0.014982744 = product of:
      0.059930976 = sum of:
        0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059930976 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper investigates whether free access to scientific literature increases the participation of under-represented groups in scientific discourse. To this end, we aggregate and match data tracing access to Sci-Hub, a widely used black open access (OA) repository or shadow library, and publication data from the Web of Science (WoS). We treat the emergence of Sci-Hub as an exogenous event granting relatively unrestricted access to publications, which are otherwise hidden behind a paywall. We analyze changes in the publication count of researchers from developing countries in a given journal as a proxy for general participation in scientific discourse. Our results indicate that in the exemplary field of mathematics, free access to academic knowledge is likely to improve the representation of authors from developing countries in international journals. Assuming the desirability of greater international diversity in science (e.g., to generate more original work, reproduce empirical findings in different settings, or shift the research focus toward topics that are overlooked by researchers from more developed countries), our findings lend evidence to the claim of the OA movement that scientific knowledge should be free and widely distributed.

0.007491372 = product of:
  0.014982744 = sum of:
    0.014982744 = product of:
      0.059930976 = sum of:
        0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059930976 = score(doc=741,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.