Search (145 results, page 1 of 8)

0.14126763 = product of:
  0.28253525 = sum of:
    0.28253525 = sum of:
      0.1702397 = weight(_text_:n in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1702397 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.76220036 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.11229556 = weight(_text_:22 in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11229556 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)

Source

Advances in librarianship. 22(1998), S.59-75

0.102827996 = product of:
  0.20565599 = sum of:
    0.20565599 = sum of:
      0.10639981 = weight(_text_:n in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10639981 = score(doc=3582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.47637522 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.09925619 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09925619 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)

Date

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

0.06302012 = sum of:
  0.036420166 = product of:
    0.14568067 = sum of:
      0.14568067 = weight(_text_:authors in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14568067 = score(doc=5317,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026599953 = product of:
    0.053199906 = sum of:
      0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053199906 = score(doc=5317,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.06180459 = product of:
  0.12360918 = sum of:
    0.12360918 = sum of:
      0.07447987 = weight(_text_:n in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07447987 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.33346266 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.049129307 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049129307 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.053199906 = product of:
  0.10639981 = sum of:
    0.10639981 = product of:
      0.21279962 = sum of:
        0.21279962 = weight(_text_:n in 6201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21279962 = score(doc=6201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.95275044 = fieldWeight in 6201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=6201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

n

0.053199906 = product of:
  0.10639981 = sum of:
    0.10639981 = product of:
      0.21279962 = sum of:
        0.21279962 = weight(_text_:n in 6202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21279962 = score(doc=6202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.95275044 = fieldWeight in 6202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=6202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

n

0.051863447 = sum of:
  0.023789555 = product of:
    0.09515822 = sum of:
      0.09515822 = weight(_text_:authors in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09515822 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02807389 = product of:
    0.05614778 = sum of:
      0.05614778 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05614778 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)

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

0.04976211 = sum of:
  0.017842166 = product of:
    0.071368665 = sum of:
      0.071368665 = weight(_text_:authors in 3218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071368665 = score(doc=3218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3218, 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=3218)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.031919945 = product of:
    0.06383989 = sum of:
      0.06383989 = weight(_text_:n in 3218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06383989 = score(doc=3218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.28582513 = fieldWeight in 3218, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3218)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reviews the publishing process, including both paper and electronic publishing, authors, publishers and libraries, and the associated publications channels. Focuses on 1 particular publication channel, which incorporated all the steps involved from the acquisition of a manuscript in a generic markup language, such as SGML, to the presentation of the final electronic publication to the user in the library. The use of a markup language is seen as being an essential component for facilitating the exchange of electronic documents between different systems and applications. In addition, the use of a generic markup language allows several of the steps of the publishing process to be automated. Proposess a system which provides the acquisition and authoring tools required to generate electronic books, together with an appropriate interface and readers' services. The system incorporates 2 notable features: a model of an electronic book (hyper-book) based on the book metaphor; and an environment which supports the semiautomatic generation of electronic books (hyper-book builder) starting from a manuscript which is already available in SGML format

0.045380514 = sum of:
  0.02081586 = product of:
    0.08326344 = sum of:
      0.08326344 = weight(_text_:authors in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08326344 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024564654 = product of:
    0.049129307 = sum of:
      0.049129307 = weight(_text_:22 in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049129307 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)

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

0.042559925 = product of:
  0.08511985 = sum of:
    0.08511985 = product of:
      0.1702397 = sum of:
        0.1702397 = weight(_text_:n in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1702397 = score(doc=3959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.76220036 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

n

0.041989192 = sum of:
  0.011894777 = product of:
    0.04757911 = sum of:
      0.04757911 = weight(_text_:authors in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04757911 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
  0.030094413 = product of:
    0.060188826 = sum of:
      0.060188826 = weight(_text_:n in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060188826 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.26947853 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, 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.

0.041468427 = sum of:
  0.014868473 = product of:
    0.05947389 = sum of:
      0.05947389 = weight(_text_:authors in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05947389 = score(doc=448,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
  0.026599953 = product of:
    0.053199906 = sum of:
      0.053199906 = weight(_text_:n in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053199906 = score(doc=448,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = queryNorm
          0.23818761 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
    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.

0.03889758 = sum of:
  0.017842166 = product of:
    0.071368665 = sum of:
      0.071368665 = weight(_text_:authors in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071368665 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021055417 = product of:
    0.042110834 = sum of:
      0.042110834 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042110834 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)

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

0.0378265 = sum of:
  0.023789555 = product of:
    0.09515822 = sum of:
      0.09515822 = weight(_text_:authors in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09515822 = score(doc=4631,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014036945 = product of:
    0.02807389 = sum of:
      0.02807389 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02807389 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)

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

0.037239935 = product of:
  0.07447987 = sum of:
    0.07447987 = product of:
      0.14895974 = sum of:
        0.14895974 = weight(_text_:n in 2324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14895974 = score(doc=2324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.6669253 = fieldWeight in 2324, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

n

0.03509236 = product of:
  0.07018472 = sum of:
    0.07018472 = product of:
      0.14036945 = sum of:
        0.14036945 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14036945 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

RRZK-Kompass. 1995, Nr.65, S.21-22

0.031919945 = product of:
  0.06383989 = sum of:
    0.06383989 = product of:
      0.12767978 = sum of:
        0.12767978 = weight(_text_:n in 3251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12767978 = score(doc=3251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.57165027 = fieldWeight in 3251, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.031919945 = product of:
  0.06383989 = sum of:
    0.06383989 = product of:
      0.12767978 = sum of:
        0.12767978 = weight(_text_:n in 3254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12767978 = score(doc=3254,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.57165027 = fieldWeight in 3254, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3254)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0308587 = sum of:
  0.016821755 = product of:
    0.06728702 = sum of:
      0.06728702 = weight(_text_:authors in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06728702 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014036945 = product of:
    0.02807389 = sum of:
      0.02807389 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02807389 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05180212 = 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)

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

0.029776858 = product of:
  0.059553716 = sum of:
    0.059553716 = product of:
      0.11910743 = sum of:
        0.11910743 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11910743 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22
18. 6.2000 9:11:22