Search (112 results, page 1 of 6)

0.094616234 = product of:
  0.22077121 = sum of:
    0.11998113 = weight(_text_:united in 199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11998113 = score(doc=199,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22812355 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.52594805 = fieldWeight in 199, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=199)
    0.081736766 = weight(_text_:states in 199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081736766 = score(doc=199,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22391328 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 199, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=199)
    0.01905331 = product of:
      0.03810662 = sum of:
        0.03810662 = weight(_text_:design in 199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03810662 = score(doc=199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.24924651 = fieldWeight in 199, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The design of a publisher's electronic interface can have a measurable effect on electronic journal usage statistics. A study of journal usage from six COUNTER-compliant publishers at 32 research institutions in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden indicates that the ratio of PDF to HTML views is not consistent across publisher interfaces, even after controlling for differences in publisher content. The number of full-text downloads may be artificially inflated when publishers require users to view HTML versions before accessing PDF versions or when linking mechanisms, such as CrossRef, direct users to the full text rather than the abstract of each article. These results suggest that usage reports from COUNTER-compliant publishers are not directly comparable in their current form. One solution may be to modify publisher numbers with adjustment factors deemed to be representative of the benefit or disadvantage due to its interface. Standardization of some interface and linking protocols may obviate these differences and allow for more accurate cross-publisher comparisons.

0.048028074 = product of:
  0.16809826 = sum of:
    0.09998428 = weight(_text_:united in 1542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09998428 = score(doc=1542,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22812355 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 1542, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1542)
    0.068113975 = weight(_text_:states in 1542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068113975 = score(doc=1542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22391328 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.304198 = fieldWeight in 1542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1542)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This paper reviews the worldwide growth of open-access (OA) repositories, 2005 to 2012, using data collected by the OpenDOAR project. Initial repository development was focused on North America, Western Europe, and Australasia, particularly the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia, followed by Japan. Since 2010, there has been repository growth in East Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe, especially in Taiwan, Brazil, and Poland. During the period, some countries, including France, Italy, and Spain, have maintained steady growth, whereas other countries, notably China and Russia, have experienced limited growth. Globally, repositories are predominantly institutional, multidisciplinary and English-language based. They typically use open-source OAI-compliant software but have immature licensing arrangements. Although the size of repositories is difficult to assess accurately, available data indicate that a small number of large repositories and a large number of small repositories make up the repository landscape. These trends are analyzed using innovation diffusion theory, which is shown to provide a useful explanatory framework for repository adoption at global, national, organizational, and individual levels. Major factors affecting both the initial development of repositories and their take-up include IT infrastructure, cultural factors, policy initiatives, awareness-raising activity, and usage mandates. Mandates are likely to be crucial in determining future repository development.

0.039661013 = product of:
  0.13881354 = sum of:
    0.070699565 = weight(_text_:united in 1335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070699565 = score(doc=1335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22812355 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 1335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1335)
    0.068113975 = weight(_text_:states in 1335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068113975 = score(doc=1335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22391328 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.304198 = fieldWeight in 1335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1335)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

With electronic book (e-book) sales and readership rising, are e-books positioned to replace print books? This study examines the preference for e-books and print books in the contexts of reading purpose, reading situation, and contextual variables such as age, gender, education level, race/ethnicity, income, community type, and Internet use. In addition, this study aims to identify factors that contribute to e-book adoption. Participants were a nationally representative sample of 2,986 people in the United States from the Reading Habits Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project (http://pewinternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2011/December-2011--Reading-Habits.aspx). While the results of this study support the notion that e-books have firmly established a place in people's lives, due to their convenience of access, e-books are not yet positioned to replace print books. Both print books and e-books have unique attributes and serve irreplaceable functions to meet people's reading needs, which may vary by individual demographic, contextual, and situational factors. At this point, the leading significant predictors of e-book adoption are the number of books read, the individual's income, the occurrence and frequency of reading for research topics of interest, and the individual's Internet use, followed by other variables such as race/ethnicity, reading for work/school, age, and education.

0.024303397 = product of:
  0.17012377 = sum of:
    0.17012377 = weight(_text_:sites in 7284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17012377 = score(doc=7284,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21257097 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.8003152 = fieldWeight in 7284, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7284)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Attempts to clarify some of the misconceptions regarding the expression: 'publishing on the net' and argues that very few companies actually 'publish on the net'. Many simple rework existing material so that it can be delivered electronically without significantly adding value or differentiating material from that available in more traditional formats. Differentiates between publisher sites, bookshop sites, wholesaler sites and cybersites

0.020813111 = product of:
  0.14569177 = sum of:
    0.14569177 = sum of:
      0.10161766 = weight(_text_:design in 7481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10161766 = score(doc=7481,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.66465735 = fieldWeight in 7481, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7481)
      0.044074114 = weight(_text_:22 in 7481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044074114 = score(doc=7481,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7481, 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=7481)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In print publications, content elements are representable in visual form, but in digital presentation function may be shown through hypertext. Good design must be a tool to illuminate content, not an arbitrary add on. Sets out elements of good digital design. Consideration of the purpose of the publication, the use of the publication, the audience, and the market will help to identify appropriate design choices

Source

Journal of scholarly publishing. 28(1996) no.1, S.13-22

0.02068971 = product of:
  0.07241398 = sum of:
    0.036832877 = weight(_text_:sites in 729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036832877 = score(doc=729,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21257097 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.17327332 = fieldWeight in 729, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=729)
    0.035581104 = sum of:
      0.01905331 = weight(_text_:design in 729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01905331 = score(doc=729,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.124623254 = fieldWeight in 729, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=729)
      0.016527792 = weight(_text_:22 in 729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016527792 = score(doc=729,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 729, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=729)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

In diesem Buch sollen die grundlegenden Techniken zur Erstellung, Anwendung und nicht zuletzt Darstellung von XML-Dokumenten erklärt und demonstriert werden. Die wichtigste und vornehmste Aufgabe dieses Buches ist es jedoch, die Grundlagen von XML, wie sie vom World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) festgelegt sind, darzustellen. Das W3C hat nicht nur die Entwicklung von XML initiiert und ist die zuständige Organisation für alle XML-Standards, es werden auch weiterhin XML-Spezifikationen vom W3C entwickelt. Auch wenn immer mehr Vorschläge für neue XML-basierte Techniken aus dem weiteren Umfeld der an XML Interessierten kommen, so spielt doch weiterhin das W3C die zentrale und wichtigste Rolle für die Entwicklung von XML. Der Schwerpunkt dieses Buches liegt darin, zu lernen, wie man XML als tragende Technologie in echten Alltags-Anwendungen verwendet. Wir wollen Ihnen gute Design-Techniken vorstellen und demonstrieren, wie man XML-fähige Anwendungen mit Applikationen für das WWW oder mit Datenbanksystemen verknüpft. Wir wollen die Grenzen und Möglichkeiten von XML ausloten und eine Vorausschau auf einige "nascent"-Technologien werfen. Egal ob Ihre Anforderungen sich mehr an dem Austausch von Daten orientieren oder bei der visuellen Gestaltung liegen, dieses Buch behandelt alle relevanten Techniken. jedes Kapitel enthält ein Anwendungsbeispiel. Da XML eine Plattform-neutrale Technologie ist, werden in den Beispielen eine breite Palette von Sprachen, Parsern und Servern behandelt. Jede der vorgestellten Techniken und Methoden ist auf allen Plattformen und Betriebssystemen relevant. Auf diese Weise erhalten Sie wichtige Einsichten durch diese Beispiele, auch wenn die konkrete Implementierung nicht auf dem von Ihnen bevorzugten System durchgeführt wurde.
Dieses Buch wendet sich an alle, die Anwendungen auf der Basis von XML entwickeln wollen. Designer von Websites können neue Techniken erlernen, wie sie ihre Sites auf ein neues technisches Niveau heben können. Entwickler komplexerer Software-Systeme und Programmierer können lernen, wie XML in ihr System passt und wie es helfen kann, Anwendungen zu integrieren. XML-Anwendungen sind von ihrer Natur her verteilt und im Allgemeinen Web-orientiert. Dieses Buch behandelt nicht verteilte Systeme oder die Entwicklung von Web-Anwendungen, sie brauchen also keine tieferen Kenntnisse auf diesen Gebieten. Ein allgemeines Verständnis für verteilte Architekturen und Funktionsweisen des Web wird vollauf genügen. Die Beispiele in diesem Buch verwenden eine Reihe von Programmiersprachen und Technologien. Ein wichtiger Bestandteil der Attraktivität von XML ist seine Plattformunabhängigkeit und Neutralität gegenüber Programmiersprachen. Sollten Sie schon Web-Anwendungen entwickelt haben, stehen die Chancen gut, dass Sie einige Beispiele in Ihrer bevorzugten Sprache finden werden. Lassen Sie sich nicht entmutigen, wenn Sie kein Beispiel speziell für Ihr System finden sollten. Tools für die Arbeit mit XML gibt es für Perl, C++, Java, JavaScript und jede COM-fähige Sprache. Der Internet Explorer (ab Version 5.0) hat bereits einige Möglichkeiten zur Verarbeitung von XML-Dokumenten eingebaut. Auch der Mozilla-Browser (der Open-Source-Nachfolger des Netscape Navigators) bekommt ähnliche Fähigkeiten. XML-Tools tauchen auch zunehmend in großen relationalen Datenbanksystemen auf, genau wie auf Web- und Applikations-Servern. Sollte Ihr System nicht in diesem Buch behandelt werden, lernen Sie die Grundlagen und machen Sie sich mit den vorgestellten Techniken aus den Beispielen vertraut.

Date

22. 6.2005 15:12:11

0.012420927 = product of:
  0.08694649 = sum of:
    0.08694649 = sum of:
      0.053890903 = weight(_text_:design in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053890903 = score(doc=1385,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.3524878 = fieldWeight in 1385, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1385)
      0.033055585 = weight(_text_:22 in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033055585 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1385, 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=1385)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This volume is the first book coherently summarizing the current issues in digital libraries research, design and management. It presents, in a homogeneous way, thoroughly revised versions of 15 papers accepted for the First International Workshop on Digital Libraries, DL '94, held at Rutgers University in May 1994; in addition there are two introductory chapters provided by the volume editors, as well as a comprehensive bibliography listing 262 entries. Besides introductory aspects, the topics addressed are administration and management, information retrieval and hypertext, classification and indexing, and prototypes and applications. The volume is intended for researchers and design professionals in the field, as well as for experts from libraries administration and scientific publishing.

Date

22. 1.1996 18:26:45

0.012119926 = product of:
  0.08483948 = sum of:
    0.08483948 = weight(_text_:united in 1504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08483948 = score(doc=1504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22812355 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 1504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1504)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper describes high-quality journals in Brazil and Spain, with an emphasis on the distribution models used. It presents the general characteristics (age, type of publisher, and theme) and analyzes the distribution model by studying the type of format (print or digital), the type of access (open access or subscription), and the technology platform used. The 549 journals analyzed (249 in Brazil and 300 in Spain) are included in the 2011 Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Data on each journal were collected directly from their websites between March and October 2012. Brazil has a fully open access distribution model (97%) in which few journals require payment by authors thanks to cultural, financial, operational, and technological support provided by public agencies. In Spain, open access journals account for 55% of the total and have also received support from public agencies, although to a lesser extent. These results show that there are systems support of open access in scientific journals other than the "author pays" model advocated by the Finch report for the United Kingdom.

0.011860368 = product of:
  0.08302257 = sum of:
    0.08302257 = sum of:
      0.044457722 = weight(_text_:design in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044457722 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.29078758 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
      0.03856485 = weight(_text_:22 in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03856485 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3598, 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=3598)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Describes an object-oriented model for paper-based multimedia documents such as textbook with embedded graphics. This model is the 1st step towards building a manageable authoring system for the Web, in which documents can be easily built, extended, truncated, reordered, assembled and disassembled on a computer basis, and the document components, can be reused. The model will also make accessible properties, which might be significant or important to the user, especially in searching or classifying documents, such as the document title and author. Explains the model design and presents the class hierarchy for the model

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.01100888 = product of:
  0.07706216 = sum of:
    0.07706216 = weight(_text_:states in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07706216 = score(doc=4997,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22391328 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.34416074 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to study current policies and practices of scholarly journals on evaluating manuscripts for publication that had been previously published electronically. Various electronic forms were considered: a manuscript having been e-mailed to members of a listserv, attached to a personal or institutional home page, stored in an electronic preprint collection, or published in an electronic proceedings or electronic journal. Factors that might affect the consideration of such manuscripts were also examined, including characteristics of the journal, the previously published work, and the submitted manuscript. A sample of 202 scholarly journals in the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities was selected for study. A questionnaire and cover letters were sent to the journal editors in the summer and fall of 1997, with an overall return rate of 57.4%. Results are reported for all journals, with comparisons being made between journals edited in the Unites States and outside the Unites States, by journal impact factor, and by discipline. The findings suggest that editorial policies regarding prior electronic publication are in an early stage of development. Most journal editors do not have a formal policy regarding the evaluation of work previously published in electronic form, nor are they currently evaluating such a policy. Editors disagreed widely on the importance of the various factors that might affect their decision to consider a work previously published electronically. The form or type of prior electronic publication was an important variable. Although some editors currently have a fairly rigid and negative posture towards work previously published electronically, most are willing to consider certain forms of such work for publication in their journals. Probably the most significant results of the study were the many differences in practices among scholarly disciplines. The findings of this study reveal how the Internet and the World Wide Web are currently affecting manuscript consideration policies of scholarly journals at this early stage of Web and Internet publishing

0.008471692 = product of:
  0.05930184 = sum of:
    0.05930184 = sum of:
      0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03175552 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.027546322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027546322 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.008471692 = product of:
  0.05930184 = sum of:
    0.05930184 = sum of:
      0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03175552 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.027546322 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027546322 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.008079951 = product of:
  0.056559652 = sum of:
    0.056559652 = weight(_text_:united in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056559652 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22812355 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.2479343 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

There is an "information burst" going on in our world. Therefore we think more about the role of information in modern society and in our personal life. The political waves of the peaceful revolutionary process virtually start to erase the borders of the countries drawn on the maps. A little more than ten years ago we had not even a concept for "Belarusian-German relations", because both countries "the new united Germany and the Republic of Belarus did not exist on the maps of the world. Today the communication between our countries covers all aspects of public life "culture" science and education. We have laid a foundation for our economic and cultural cooperation. We already have had some experience in the joint solution of internal and international problems. And "what is most striking" the warm human contacts of the people consolidate and accelerate the process of mutual understanding between our countries and broaden our view. Today no country in the world can yield their citizens more freedom of choice than the "state" of the Internet. The people, freely migrating in a boundless information space, know how to use the invaluable treasures of human thought and creatively increase the achievements of mankind by intellectual work. These people become the pride of every country in our time. In educating, shaping and supporting such persons we see a new social role of the libraries. It is clearly visible that libraries turn into modern information centers. The introduction of new information know-how and the access to electronic information by means of an electronic library satisfy the increasing need of effective and comprehensive information. All steps of the work with documents (publication "search" delivery) are automated. The fast electronic delivery of documents is promoted by the growth of global information networks, by the increase of transfer rates of dates" by the capability of online search in the electronic catalogues and databases connected with the automated systems of the ordering of copies, by the technical equipment and software of scanning and recognition of the text.

0.007870378 = product of:
  0.055092644 = sum of:
    0.055092644 = product of:
      0.11018529 = sum of:
        0.11018529 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11018529 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

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

0.007015786 = product of:
  0.049110502 = sum of:
    0.049110502 = weight(_text_:sites in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049110502 = score(doc=940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21257097 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.23103109 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Grey Literature and Open Access publications have the potential to become the basis of new types of scientific publications, in which scientific discourse and collaboration can play a central role in the dissemination of knowledge, due to their machine-readable format and electronic availability. With advances in cyber science and e-(Social) Science, an increasing number of scientific publications are required to be shared with different group members or even within communities in virtual reading environments. However, the most often used format for publishing articles on the web is still the Adobe PDF format, which limits the extent to which readers of an article can interact with online content and within their browser environment. This not only separates the formal communication - the article itself - from the informal communication about a publication - the discussion about the article - but also fails to link the different threads of communications which might appear in parallel at different locations in the scientific community as a whole. Analysis of around 30 web sites where different ways for presenting formal and informal communications were conducted shows in the identification of several prototypes of media combinations which were then evaluated against human factor aspects (distance between related information, arrangement of related information etc). Based on this evaluation we concluded that at the time of analysis, no model exist for directly integrating formal and informal communication to a single media, allowing readers of publications to directly discuss within the publication, e.g. to extend the publication with their input directly at the paragraph they wanted to comment. Therefore, a new publishing medium is necessary to fulfil the gap between the formal and informal communication, facilitating and engaging academic readers' active participating in the online scientific discourse. We have developed an online discussion service, which allows interactive features for annotation directly available at the point in the publication to which the comment refers to. Besides the exchange of ideas and the stimulation of discourse across portals and communities we approach at the same time to create a new basis for research in scientific discourse, networking and collaboration. This is supported by linking from the individual article to other publications or information items in digital libraries.

0.0067773536 = product of:
  0.04744147 = sum of:
    0.04744147 = sum of:
      0.025404414 = weight(_text_:design in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025404414 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.16616434 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.022037057 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022037057 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.0067773536 = product of:
  0.04744147 = sum of:
    0.04744147 = sum of:
      0.025404414 = weight(_text_:design in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025404414 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = queryNorm
          0.16616434 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.022037057 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022037057 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04066292 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.0066782376 = product of:
  0.046747662 = sum of:
    0.046747662 = product of:
      0.093495324 = sum of:
        0.093495324 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093495324 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

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

0.006296302 = product of:
  0.044074114 = sum of:
    0.044074114 = product of:
      0.08814823 = sum of:
        0.08814823 = weight(_text_:22 in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08814823 = score(doc=5919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Infodoc. 19(1993) H.3, S.20-22

0.006296302 = product of:
  0.044074114 = sum of:
    0.044074114 = product of:
      0.08814823 = sum of:
        0.08814823 = weight(_text_:22 in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08814823 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

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