Search (140 results, page 1 of 7)

0.10820834 = product of:
  0.21641669 = sum of:
    0.21641669 = sum of:
      0.16103142 = weight(_text_:journals in 5196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16103142 = score(doc=5196,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.627633 = fieldWeight in 5196, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5196)
      0.055385258 = weight(_text_:22 in 5196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055385258 = score(doc=5196,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5196, 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=5196)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Will traditional forms of communication seamlessly migrate to the Web? Liew, Foo, and Chennupati report that the top-ranked features of e-journals are those not available in paper journals: querying, navigation, and visualization.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.1, S.22-35

0.052296486 = product of:
  0.10459297 = sum of:
    0.10459297 = product of:
      0.20918594 = sum of:
        0.20918594 = weight(_text_:journals in 5212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20918594 = score(doc=5212,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.8153191 = fieldWeight in 5212, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

By Internet resources Zhang means any electronic file accessible by any Internet protocol. Their usage is determined by an examination of the citations to such sources in a nine-year sample of four print and four electronic LIS journals, by a survey of editors of these journals, and by a survey of scholars with "in press" papers in these journals. Citations were gathered from Social Science Citation Index and manually classed as e-sources by the format used. All authors with "in press" papers were asked about their use and opinion of Internet sources and for any suggestions for improvement. Use of electronic sources is heavy and access is very high. Access and ability explain most usage while satisfaction was not significant. Citation of e-journals increases over the eight years. Authors report under citation of e-journals in favor of print equivalents. Traditional reasons are given for citing and not citing, but additional reasons are also present for e-journals.

0.049816553 = product of:
  0.099633105 = sum of:
    0.099633105 = product of:
      0.19926621 = sum of:
        0.19926621 = weight(_text_:journals in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19926621 = score(doc=1969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.77665615 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.042699903 = product of:
  0.08539981 = sum of:
    0.08539981 = product of:
      0.17079961 = sum of:
        0.17079961 = weight(_text_:journals in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17079961 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.66570526 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.039783288 = product of:
  0.079566576 = sum of:
    0.079566576 = product of:
      0.15913315 = sum of:
        0.15913315 = weight(_text_:journals in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15913315 = score(doc=5176,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.6202343 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.

0.036979202 = product of:
  0.073958404 = sum of:
    0.073958404 = product of:
      0.14791681 = sum of:
        0.14791681 = weight(_text_:journals in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14791681 = score(doc=753,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5765177 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to summarize the developments taking place in the scholarly communication system by reviewing the published literature on journal subscriptions, electronic publishing, electronic journals, Internet and changing information needs of researchers. It examines the role of different players in the scholarly communication process such as authors, commercial publishers, libraries, universities, and learned societies, their problems and efforts in meeting the new challenges brought in by the Internet. The study also explores the need for adopting electronic media for scholarly communication in place of printed journals considering the advantages such as accessibility, speed, cost and acceptance by the academic and research community. At the end it provides general guidance to authors, publishers and libraries to develop mechanisms for mutual benefit and foster the scholarly communication process in the new environment.

0.03558325 = product of:
  0.0711665 = sum of:
    0.0711665 = product of:
      0.142333 = sum of:
        0.142333 = weight(_text_:journals in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.142333 = score(doc=3880,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5547544 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The number and type of Web citations to journal articles in four areas of science are examined: biology, genetics, medicine, and multidisciplinary sciences. For a sample of 5,972 articles published in 114 journals, the median Web citation counts per journal article range from 6.2 in medicine to 10.4 in genetics. About 30% of Web citations in each area indicate intellectual impact (citations from articles or class readings, in contrast to citations from bibliographic services or the author's or journal's home page). Journals receiving more Web citations also have higher percentages of citations indicating intellectual impact. There is significant correlation between the number of citations reported in the databases from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific) and the number of citations retrieved using the Google search engine (Web citations). The correlation is much weaker for journals published outside the United Kingdom or United States and for multidisciplinary journals. Web citation numbers are higher than ISI citation counts, suggesting that Web searches might be conducted for an earlier or a more fine-grained assessment of an article's impact. The Web-evident impact of non-UK/USA publications might provide a balance to the geographic or cultural biases observed in ISI's data, although the stability of Web citation counts is debatable.

0.028466603 = product of:
  0.056933206 = sum of:
    0.056933206 = product of:
      0.11386641 = sum of:
        0.11386641 = weight(_text_:journals in 1997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11386641 = score(doc=1997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.44380352 = fieldWeight in 1997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This bibliography contains selected cataloging tools an the Internet. It is divided into seven sections as follows: authority management and subject headings tools; cataloging tools by type of materials; dictionaries, encyclopedias, and place names; listservs and workshops; software and vendors; technical service professional organizations; and journals and newsletters. Resources are arranged in alphabetical order under each topic. Selected cataloging tools are annotated. There is some overlap since a given web site can cover many tools.

0.027692629 = product of:
  0.055385258 = sum of:
    0.055385258 = product of:
      0.110770516 = sum of:
        0.110770516 = weight(_text_:22 in 5649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110770516 = score(doc=5649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5649, 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=5649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 4.2002 17:30:22

0.025161162 = product of:
  0.050322324 = sum of:
    0.050322324 = product of:
      0.10064465 = sum of:
        0.10064465 = weight(_text_:journals in 4490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10064465 = score(doc=4490,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.39227062 = fieldWeight in 4490, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4490)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Web impact factors, the proposed web equivalent of impact factors for journals, can be calculated by using search engines. It has been found that the results are problematic because of the variable coverage of search engines as well as their ability to give significantly different results over short periods of time. The fundamental problem is that although some search engines provide a functionality that is capable of being used for impact calculations, this is not their primary task and therefore they do not give guarantees as to performance in this respect. In this paper, a bespoke web crawler designed specifically for the calculation of reliable WIFs is presented. This crawler was used to calculate WIFs for a number of UK universities, and the results of these calculations are discussed. The principal findings were that with certain restrictions, WIFs can be calculated reliably, but do not correlate with accepted research rankings owing to the variety of material hosted on university servers. Changes to the calculations to improve the fit of the results to research rankings are proposed, but there are still inherent problems undermining the reliability of the calculation. These problems still apply if the WIF scores are taken on their own as indicators of the general impact of any area of the Internet, but with care would not apply to online journals.

0.025161162 = product of:
  0.050322324 = sum of:
    0.050322324 = product of:
      0.10064465 = sum of:
        0.10064465 = weight(_text_:journals in 1334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10064465 = score(doc=1334,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.39227062 = fieldWeight in 1334, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Web citations have become common in scholarly publications as the amount of online literature increases. Yet, such links are not persistent and many decay over time, causing accessibility problems for readers. The present study investigates the link decay phenomenon in three leading information science journals. Articles spanning a period of 7 years (1997-2003) were downloaded, and their links were extracted. From these, a measure of link decay, the half-life, was computed to be approximately 5 years, which compares favorably against other disciplines (1.4-4.8 years). The study also investigated types of link accessibility errors encountered as well as examined characteristics of links that may be associated with decay. It was found that approximately 31% of all citations were not accessible during the time of testing, and the majority of errors were due to missing content (HTTP Error Code 404). Citations from the edu domain were also found to have the highest failure rates of 36% when compared with other popular top-level domains. Results indicate that link decay is a problem that cannot be ignored, and implications for journal authors and readers are discussed.

0.024908276 = product of:
  0.049816553 = sum of:
    0.049816553 = product of:
      0.099633105 = sum of:
        0.099633105 = weight(_text_:journals in 967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099633105 = score(doc=967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.38832808 = fieldWeight in 967, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Internet resources have brought great excitement but also grave concerns to the library world, especially to the cataloging community. In spite of the various problematic aspects presented by Internet resources (poorly organized, lack of stability, variable quality), catalogers have decided that they are worth cataloging, in particular those meeting library selection criteria. This paper tries to trace the decade-long history of the library comrnunity's efforts in providing an effective way to catalog Internet resources. Basically, its olbjective is to answer the following questions: Why catalog? What to catalog? and, How to catalog. Some issues of cataloging electronic journals and developments of the Dublin Core Metadata system are also discussed.

0.024652801 = product of:
  0.049305603 = sum of:
    0.049305603 = product of:
      0.098611206 = sum of:
        0.098611206 = weight(_text_:journals in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098611206 = score(doc=3093,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.38434514 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.

0.02423105 = product of:
  0.0484621 = sum of:
    0.0484621 = product of:
      0.0969242 = sum of:
        0.0969242 = weight(_text_:22 in 6140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0969242 = score(doc=6140,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6140, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6140)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.02423105 = product of:
  0.0484621 = sum of:
    0.0484621 = product of:
      0.0969242 = sum of:
        0.0969242 = weight(_text_:22 in 4364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0969242 = score(doc=4364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:29:08

0.02423105 = product of:
  0.0484621 = sum of:
    0.0484621 = product of:
      0.0969242 = sum of:
        0.0969242 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0969242 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 26(2000), no.6, Aug/Sept, S.22-25

0.02423105 = product of:
  0.0484621 = sum of:
    0.0484621 = product of:
      0.0969242 = sum of:
        0.0969242 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0969242 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2001 11:57:52

0.02423105 = product of:
  0.0484621 = sum of:
    0.0484621 = product of:
      0.0969242 = sum of:
        0.0969242 = weight(_text_:22 in 6872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0969242 = score(doc=6872,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6872, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 8.2002 11:47:22

0.02423105 = product of:
  0.0484621 = sum of:
    0.0484621 = product of:
      0.0969242 = sum of:
        0.0969242 = weight(_text_:22 in 6879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0969242 = score(doc=6879,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6879, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6879)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Online Mitteilungen. 2001, Nr.70, S.22-36 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 54(2001) H.2/3]

0.020769471 = product of:
  0.041538943 = sum of:
    0.041538943 = product of:
      0.083077885 = sum of:
        0.083077885 = weight(_text_:22 in 1512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083077885 = score(doc=1512,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1512, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 8.2002 15:05:22