-
Smith, J.M.: ¬The Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) : guidelines for authors (1987)
0.10
0.09623009 = product of:
0.14434513 = sum of:
0.049886264 = product of:
0.14965878 = sum of:
0.14965878 = weight(_text_:authors in 5946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14965878 = score(doc=5946,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 5946, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5946)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.09445887 = product of:
0.18891774 = sum of:
0.18891774 = weight(_text_:j.m in 5946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18891774 = score(doc=5946,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.67297614 = fieldWeight in 5946, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5946)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Guidelines for authors of scholarly publications who wish to prepare documents for a publisher on existing text entry devices, word processors and personal computers, adding markup to the text in accordance with the SGML
-
Oppenheim, C.: ¬The implications of copyright legislation for electronic access to journal collections (1994)
0.04
0.035464358 = product of:
0.053196535 = sum of:
0.028219929 = product of:
0.084659785 = sum of:
0.084659785 = weight(_text_:authors in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084659785 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.024976607 = product of:
0.049953215 = sum of:
0.049953215 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049953215 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7245, 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=7245)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The nature and implications of electrocopying are summarised. After a brief review of the principles of copyright, the issue of whether electrocopying infringes copyright is debated. Publishers are aware of the threat that electrocopying poses to their business. The various options available to publishers for responding to electrocopying are summarised. Patterns of scholarly communications and the relationships between authors, publishers and libraries are being challenged. Constructive dialogue is necessary if the issues are to be resolved
- Source
- Journal of document and text management. 2(1994) no.1, S.10-22
-
Smith, J.M.: ¬The Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) : guidelines for editors and publishers (1987)
0.03
0.03148629 = product of:
0.09445887 = sum of:
0.09445887 = product of:
0.18891774 = sum of:
0.18891774 = weight(_text_:j.m in 5941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18891774 = score(doc=5941,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28071982 = queryWeight, product of:
6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.67297614 = fieldWeight in 5941, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5941)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Schwartz, E.: Like a book on a wire (1993)
0.03
0.031031314 = product of:
0.04654697 = sum of:
0.024692439 = product of:
0.074077316 = sum of:
0.074077316 = weight(_text_:authors in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074077316 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.021854531 = product of:
0.043709062 = sum of:
0.043709062 = weight(_text_:22 in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043709062 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 582, 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=582)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Discusses the publishing of books online on the Internet, in the USA. The issues is treated mainly in relation to trade publishers. Outlines various ways in which such publishers have so far used the Internet, for example in the publishing of the full text of works of fiction, for publishing catalogues, and for presenting authors to the public via bulletin boards or electronic conferences. Notes a number or problems which arise: copyright, payment for accessing items, advertising restrictions, and the ease with which the published unit can be tampered with when available on the Internet. Also discusses collaboration and conflicts between publishers and the technology industry
- Source
- Publishers weekly. 240(1993) no.47, 22 Nov., S.33-35,38
-
Engels, T.C.E; Istenic Starcic, A.; Kulczycki, E.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.: Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? (2018)
0.03
0.027138822 = product of:
0.040708233 = sum of:
0.028219929 = product of:
0.084659785 = sum of:
0.084659785 = weight(_text_:authors in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084659785 = score(doc=4631,freq=8.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.012488304 = product of:
0.024976607 = sum of:
0.024976607 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024976607 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Oppenheim, C.: Electronic scholarly publishing and open access (2009)
0.03
0.026598267 = product of:
0.0398974 = sum of:
0.021164946 = product of:
0.06349484 = sum of:
0.06349484 = weight(_text_:authors in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06349484 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.018732455 = product of:
0.03746491 = sum of:
0.03746491 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03746491 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- A review of recent developments in electronic publishing, with a focus on Open Access (OA) is provided. It describes the two main types of OA, i.e. the `gold' OA journal route and the 'green' repository route, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the two, and the reactions of the publishing industry to these developments. Quality, cost and copyright issues are explored, as well as some of the business models of OA. It is noted that whilst so far there is no evidence that a shift to OA will lead to libraries cancelling subscriptions to toll-access journals, this may happen in the future, and that despite the apparently compelling reasons for authors to move to OA, so far few have shown themselves willing to do so. Conclusions about the future of scholarly publications are drawn.
- Date
- 8. 7.2010 19:22:45
-
Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017)
0.02
0.02162854 = product of:
0.03244281 = sum of:
0.019954504 = product of:
0.05986351 = sum of:
0.05986351 = weight(_text_:authors in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05986351 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.012488304 = product of:
0.024976607 = sum of:
0.024976607 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024976607 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Veittes, M.: Electronic Book (1995)
0.02
0.020813841 = product of:
0.06244152 = sum of:
0.06244152 = product of:
0.12488304 = sum of:
0.12488304 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12488304 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 3204, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=3204)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- RRZK-Kompass. 1995, Nr.65, S.21-22
-
Zschunke, P.; Svensson, P.: Bücherbrett für alle Fälle : Geräte-Speicher fassen Tausende von Seiten (2000)
0.02
0.01766113 = product of:
0.05298339 = sum of:
0.05298339 = product of:
0.10596678 = sum of:
0.10596678 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10596678 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 3. 5.1997 8:44:22
18. 6.2000 9:11:22
-
Leuser, P.: SGML-Einsatz bei Duden und Brockhaus : ein Verlag auf neuem Weg (1993)
0.02
0.016651072 = product of:
0.049953215 = sum of:
0.049953215 = product of:
0.09990643 = sum of:
0.09990643 = weight(_text_:22 in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09990643 = score(doc=5919,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5919, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5919)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Infodoc. 19(1993) H.3, S.20-22
-
Polatscheck, K.: Elektronische Versuchung : Test des Sony Data Discman: eine digitale Konkurrenz für Taschenbücher? (1992)
0.02
0.016651072 = product of:
0.049953215 = sum of:
0.049953215 = product of:
0.09990643 = sum of:
0.09990643 = weight(_text_:22 in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09990643 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6381, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6381)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Zeit. Nr.xx vom ???, S.22
-
Desmarais, N.: Data preparation for electronic publications (1998)
0.02
0.016651072 = product of:
0.049953215 = sum of:
0.049953215 = product of:
0.09990643 = sum of:
0.09990643 = weight(_text_:22 in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09990643 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Advances in librarianship. 22(1998), S.59-75
-
Academic publishing : No peeking (2014)
0.02
0.016461626 = product of:
0.049384877 = sum of:
0.049384877 = product of:
0.14815463 = sum of:
0.14815463 = weight(_text_:authors in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14815463 = score(doc=805,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.70515555 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- A publishing giant goes after the authors of its journals' papers
-
Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017)
0.01
0.014717608 = product of:
0.044152822 = sum of:
0.044152822 = product of:
0.088305645 = sum of:
0.088305645 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.088305645 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38
-
Dechsling, R.: Softwaretypen : Datenbank, Hypertext oder linearer Text? (1994)
0.01
0.014569688 = product of:
0.043709062 = sum of:
0.043709062 = product of:
0.087418124 = sum of:
0.087418124 = weight(_text_:22 in 8074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.087418124 = score(doc=8074,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8074, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8074)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Börsenblatt. Nr.50 vom 24.6.1994, S.19-22
-
Electronic publishing and electronic information communication (1996)
0.01
0.014569688 = product of:
0.043709062 = sum of:
0.043709062 = product of:
0.087418124 = sum of:
0.087418124 = weight(_text_:22 in 6664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.087418124 = score(doc=6664,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6664, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6664)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.181-247
-
Schmitz, H.: Lese- und Lernstoff allerwege : NuvoMedia bietet 'RocketBook' an, Bertelsmann ist dabei (1998)
0.01
0.014569688 = product of:
0.043709062 = sum of:
0.043709062 = product of:
0.087418124 = sum of:
0.087418124 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.087418124 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16138881 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 12. 2.1996 22:34:46
-
Solomon, D.J.; Björk, B.-C.: Publication fees in open access publishing : sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal (2012)
0.01
0.014400922 = product of:
0.043202765 = sum of:
0.043202765 = product of:
0.12960829 = sum of:
0.12960829 = weight(_text_:authors in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12960829 = score(doc=754,freq=12.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.61688256 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Open access (OA) journals distribute their content at no charge and use other means of funding the publication process. Publication fees or article-processing charges (APC)s have become the predominant means for funding professional OA publishing. We surveyed 1,038 authors who recently published articles in 74 OA journals that charge APCs stratified into seven discipline categories. Authors were asked about the source of funding for the APC, factors influencing their choice of a journal and past history publishing in OA and subscription journals. Additional information about the journal and the authors' country were obtained from the journal website. A total of 429 (41%) authors from 69 journals completed the survey. There were large differences in the source of funding among disciplines. Journals with impact factors charged higher APCs as did journals from disciplines where grant funding is plentiful. Fit, quality, and speed of publication were the most important factors in the authors' choice of a journal. OA was less important but a significant factor for many authors in their choice of a journal to publish. These findings are consistent with other research on OA publishing and suggest that OA publishing funded through APCs is likely to continue to grow.
-
Wakeling, S.; Creaser, C.; Pinfield, S.; Fry, J.; Spezi, V.; Willett, P.; Paramita, M.: Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors : results of a large-scale survey (2019)
0.01
0.014400922 = product of:
0.043202765 = sum of:
0.043202765 = product of:
0.12960829 = sum of:
0.12960829 = weight(_text_:authors in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12960829 = score(doc=5317,freq=12.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.61688256 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open-access (OA) business model, and "soundness-only" peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their "soundness." This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n = 11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness-only peer review: two-thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a "cascade" of articles between journals from the same publisher.
-
Watson, B.C.: Converting ACM Authors' Articles to SGML (2001)
0.01
0.0141099645 = product of:
0.042329893 = sum of:
0.042329893 = product of:
0.12698968 = sum of:
0.12698968 = weight(_text_:authors in 1031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12698968 = score(doc=1031,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21010205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046086997 = queryNorm
0.60441905 = fieldWeight in 1031, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1031)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
