Search (180 results, page 1 of 9)

0.11540459 = product of:
  0.23080918 = sum of:
    0.23080918 = sum of:
      0.117622145 = weight(_text_:k in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.117622145 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.63105357 = fieldWeight in 6381, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6381)
      0.11318704 = weight(_text_:22 in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11318704 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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)

Source

Zeit. Nr.xx vom ???, S.22

0.052275173 = sum of:
  0.023978412 = product of:
    0.09591365 = sum of:
      0.09591365 = weight(_text_:authors in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09591365 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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)
  0.02829676 = product of:
    0.05659352 = sum of:
      0.05659352 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05659352 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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

0.050489508 = product of:
  0.100979015 = sum of:
    0.100979015 = sum of:
      0.051459692 = weight(_text_:k in 26) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051459692 = score(doc=26,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.27608594 = fieldWeight in 26, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=26)
      0.049519327 = weight(_text_:22 in 26) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049519327 = score(doc=26,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 26, 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=26)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.10.2006 14:21:22

Source

Vom Wandel der Wissensorganisation im Informationszeitalter: Festschrift für Walther Umstätter zum 65. Geburtstag, hrsg. von P. Hauke u. K. Umlauf

0.050489508 = product of:
  0.100979015 = sum of:
    0.100979015 = sum of:
      0.051459692 = weight(_text_:k in 1802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051459692 = score(doc=1802,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.27608594 = fieldWeight in 1802, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1802)
      0.049519327 = weight(_text_:22 in 1802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049519327 = score(doc=1802,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1802, 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=1802)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 5.2008 19:13:22

0.045740776 = sum of:
  0.02098111 = product of:
    0.08392444 = sum of:
      0.08392444 = weight(_text_:authors in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08392444 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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)
  0.024759663 = product of:
    0.049519327 = sum of:
      0.049519327 = weight(_text_:22 in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049519327 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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

0.044335857 = sum of:
  0.025957396 = product of:
    0.103829585 = sum of:
      0.103829585 = weight(_text_:authors in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103829585 = score(doc=1206,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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)
  0.01837846 = product of:
    0.03675692 = sum of:
      0.03675692 = weight(_text_:k in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03675692 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
    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.

0.043676544 = product of:
  0.08735309 = sum of:
    0.08735309 = sum of:
      0.05198214 = weight(_text_:k in 1708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05198214 = score(doc=1708,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.2788889 = fieldWeight in 1708, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1708)
      0.03537095 = weight(_text_:22 in 1708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03537095 = score(doc=1708,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1708, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1708)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

AMT (FH K)

Date

22. 3.2008 16:15:37

GHBS

AMT (FH K)

0.04097758 = sum of:
  0.0149865085 = product of:
    0.059946034 = sum of:
      0.059946034 = weight(_text_:authors in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059946034 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02599107 = product of:
    0.05198214 = sum of:
      0.05198214 = weight(_text_:k in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05198214 = score(doc=1634,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.2788889 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Today's publishing infrastructure is rapidly changing. As electronic journals, digital libraries, collaboratories, logic servers, and other knowledge infrastructures emerge an the internet, the key aspects of this transformation need to be identified. Knowledge is becoming increasingly dynamic and integrated. Instead of writing self-contained articles, authors are turning to the new practice of embedding their findings into dynamic networks of knowledge. Here, the author details the implications that this transformation is having an the creation, dissemination and organization of academic knowledge. The author Shows that many established publishing principles need to be given up in order to facilitate this transformation. The text provides valuable insights for knowledge managers, designers of internet-based knowledge infrastructures, and professionals in the publishing industry. Researchers will find the scenarios and implications for research processes stimulating and thought-provoking.

Classification

BCA (FH K)

GHBS

BCA (FH K)

0.040037964 = sum of:
  0.017983811 = product of:
    0.071935244 = sum of:
      0.071935244 = weight(_text_:authors in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071935244 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2299, 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=2299)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022054153 = product of:
    0.044108305 = sum of:
      0.044108305 = weight(_text_:k in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044108305 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.

0.03920638 = sum of:
  0.017983811 = product of:
    0.071935244 = sum of:
      0.071935244 = weight(_text_:authors in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.071935244 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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)
  0.021222569 = product of:
    0.042445138 = sum of:
      0.042445138 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042445138 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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

0.038126793 = sum of:
  0.023978412 = product of:
    0.09591365 = sum of:
      0.09591365 = weight(_text_:authors in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09591365 = score(doc=4631,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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)
  0.01414838 = product of:
    0.02829676 = sum of:
      0.02829676 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02829676 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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

0.036063936 = product of:
  0.07212787 = sum of:
    0.07212787 = sum of:
      0.03675692 = weight(_text_:k in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03675692 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.03537095 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03537095 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.03537095 = product of:
  0.0707419 = sum of:
    0.0707419 = product of:
      0.1414838 = sum of:
        0.1414838 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1414838 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = 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

0.03336497 = sum of:
  0.0149865085 = product of:
    0.059946034 = sum of:
      0.059946034 = weight(_text_:authors in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059946034 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 4399, 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=4399)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01837846 = product of:
    0.03675692 = sum of:
      0.03675692 = weight(_text_:k in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03675692 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses the social and economic factors involved in the implementation of the electronic library. Discusses the ways in which the library metaphor may be restricitng thinking and the development of systems that may approach more closely the ideals of scholarly communication. Such a system not only necessitates new models for the concepts of periodical, library and publishing, but also new interpersonal and institutional practices, and a new basis for the economic conditions associated with communication. Electronic communication systems offer the possibility not only of disseminating information over networks but of interpersonal communication among collaborating authors or producers and, perhaps more important, between author, reader, user or consumer of the information. For example, electronic mail forms included in electronic periodicals along data discussed in the articles could lead to the evolution of electronic periodicals into electronic seminars or electronic common rooms. Poses the question of whether commercial publishers will be able to find a role to play in this process and fails to suggest an answer

Source

Electronic library and visual information research: Proceedings of the Second ELVIRA Conference (ELVIRA 2), Electronic Library and Visual Information Research, De Montfort University, Milton Keynes, May 1995. Ed. by M. Collier u, K. Arnold

0.03336497 = sum of:
  0.0149865085 = product of:
    0.059946034 = sum of:
      0.059946034 = weight(_text_:authors in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059946034 = score(doc=3768,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3768, 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=3768)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01837846 = product of:
    0.03675692 = sum of:
      0.03675692 = weight(_text_:k in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03675692 = score(doc=3768,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.

0.03336497 = sum of:
  0.0149865085 = product of:
    0.059946034 = sum of:
      0.059946034 = weight(_text_:authors in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059946034 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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)
  0.01837846 = product of:
    0.03675692 = sum of:
      0.03675692 = weight(_text_:k in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03675692 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
    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.

0.03336497 = sum of:
  0.0149865085 = product of:
    0.059946034 = sum of:
      0.059946034 = weight(_text_:authors in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059946034 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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)
  0.01837846 = product of:
    0.03675692 = sum of:
      0.03675692 = weight(_text_:k in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03675692 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
    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.

0.031103678 = sum of:
  0.0169553 = product of:
    0.0678212 = sum of:
      0.0678212 = weight(_text_:authors in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0678212 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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)
  0.01414838 = product of:
    0.02829676 = sum of:
      0.02829676 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02829676 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052213363 = 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

0.030013246 = product of:
  0.060026493 = sum of:
    0.060026493 = product of:
      0.120052986 = sum of:
        0.120052986 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120052986 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = 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

0.029405536 = product of:
  0.058811072 = sum of:
    0.058811072 = product of:
      0.117622145 = sum of:
        0.117622145 = weight(_text_:k in 6188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.117622145 = score(doc=6188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.63105357 = fieldWeight in 6188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)