Search (685 results, page 1 of 35)

0.09069128 = product of:
  0.18138257 = sum of:
    0.18138257 = product of:
      0.36276513 = sum of:
        0.36276513 = weight(_text_:m.d in 546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.36276513 = score(doc=546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33693048 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            1.0766765 = fieldWeight in 546, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.057659697 = product of:
  0.11531939 = sum of:
    0.11531939 = product of:
      0.46127757 = sum of:
        0.46127757 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.46127757 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41037613 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.05582834 = sum of:
  0.03615381 = product of:
    0.14461523 = sum of:
      0.14461523 = weight(_text_:editors in 2925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14461523 = score(doc=2925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32495478 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.048404764 = queryNorm
          0.44503185 = fieldWeight in 2925, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2925)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019674532 = product of:
    0.039349064 = sum of:
      0.039349064 = weight(_text_:22 in 2925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039349064 = score(doc=2925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16950524 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.048404764 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2925, 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=2925)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article we use a stated choice experiment to study researcher preferences in the information sciences and to investigate the relative importance of different journal characteristics in convincing potential authors to submit to a particular journal. The analysis distinguishes high quality from standard quality articles and focuses on the question whether communicating acceptance rates rather than rejection rates leads to other submission decisions. Our results show that a positive framing effect might be present when authors decide on submitting a high quality article. No evidence of a framing effect is found when authors consider a standard quality article. From a journal marketing perspective, this is important information for editors. Communicating acceptance rates rather than rejection rates might help to convince researchers to submit to their journal.

Date

7. 5.2016 20:02:22

0.048049748 = product of:
  0.096099496 = sum of:
    0.096099496 = product of:
      0.38439798 = sum of:
        0.38439798 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38439798 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41037613 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.046523616 = sum of:
  0.030128172 = product of:
    0.12051269 = sum of:
      0.12051269 = weight(_text_:editors in 1399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12051269 = score(doc=1399,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32495478 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.048404764 = queryNorm
          0.37085986 = fieldWeight in 1399, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1399)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.016395444 = product of:
    0.032790888 = sum of:
      0.032790888 = weight(_text_:22 in 1399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032790888 = score(doc=1399,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16950524 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.048404764 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1399, 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=1399)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Since ancient times intellectual work has required tools for writing, documents for reading, and bibliographies for finding, not to mention more specialized techniques and technologies. Direct personal discussion is often impractical and we depend on documents instead. Document technology evolved through writing, printing, telecommunications, copying, and computing and facilitated an 'information flood' which motivated important knowledge organization initiatives, especially in the nineteenth century (library science, bibliography, documentation). Electronics and the Internet amplified these trends. As an example we consider an initiative to provide shared access to the working notes of editors preparing scholarly editions of historically important texts. For the future, we can project trends leading to ubiquitous recording, pervasive representations, simultaneous interaction regardless of geography, and powerful analysis and visualization of the records resulting from that ubiquitous recording. This evolving situation has implications for publishing, archival practice, and knowledge organization. The passing of time is of special interest in knowledge organization because knowing is cultural, living, and always changing. Technique and technology are also cultural ("material culture") but fixed and inanimate, as can be seen in the obsolescence of subject headings, which remain inscribed while culture moves on. The tension between the benefits of technology and the limitations imposed by fixity in a changing world provide a central tension in knowledge organization over time.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.038867697 = product of:
  0.077735394 = sum of:
    0.077735394 = product of:
      0.15547079 = sum of:
        0.15547079 = weight(_text_:m.d in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15547079 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33693048 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.038867697 = product of:
  0.077735394 = sum of:
    0.077735394 = product of:
      0.15547079 = sum of:
        0.15547079 = weight(_text_:m.d in 3655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15547079 = score(doc=3655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33693048 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 3655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.03615381 = product of:
  0.07230762 = sum of:
    0.07230762 = product of:
      0.28923047 = sum of:
        0.28923047 = weight(_text_:editors in 2121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28923047 = score(doc=2121,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.32495478 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.8900637 = fieldWeight in 2121, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2121)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Here, we develop a theory of the relationship between the reviewer's effort and bias in peer review. From this theory, it follows that journal editors might employ biased reviewers because they shirk less. This creates an incentive for the editor to use monitoring mechanisms (e.g., associate editors supervising the peer review process) that mitigate the resulting bias in the reviewers' recommendations. The supervision of associate editors could encourage journal editors to employ more extreme reviewers. This theory helps to explain the presence of bias in peer review. To mitigate shirking by a reviewer, the journal editor may assign biased referees to generate information about the manuscript's quality and subject the reviewer's recommendations to supervision by a more aligned associate editor.

0.03368432 = product of:
  0.06736864 = sum of:
    0.06736864 = product of:
      0.26947457 = sum of:
        0.26947457 = weight(_text_:editors in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26947457 = score(doc=3467,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.32495478 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.82926786 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wikis are designed to support collaborative editing, without focusing on individual contribution, such that it is not straightforward to determine who contributed to a specific page. However, as wikis are increasingly adopted in settings such as business, government, and education, where editors are largely driven by career goals, there is a perceived need to modify wikis so that each editor's contributions are clearly presented. In this paper we introduce an approach for assessing the contributions of wiki editors along several authorship categories, as well as a variety of information glyphs for visualizing this information. We report on three types of analysis: (a) assessing the accuracy of the algorithms, (b) estimating the understandability of the visualizations, and (c) exploring wiki editors' perceptions regarding the extent to which such an approach is likely to change their behavior. Our findings demonstrate that our proposed automated techniques can estimate fairly accurately the quantity of editors' contributions across various authorship categories, and that the visualizations we introduced can clearly convey this information to users. Moreover, our user study suggests that such tools are likely to change wiki editors' behavior. We discuss both the potential benefits and risks associated with solutions for estimating and visualizing wiki contributions.

0.033634827 = product of:
  0.06726965 = sum of:
    0.06726965 = product of:
      0.2690786 = sum of:
        0.2690786 = weight(_text_:3a in 5955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2690786 = score(doc=5955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41037613 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 5955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5955)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Philosophisch-ethische Rezensionen vom 09.11.2019 (Jürgen Czogalla), Unter: https://philosophisch-ethische-rezensionen.de/rezension/Goedert1.html. In: B.I.T. online 23(2020) H.3, S.345-347 (W. Sühl-Strohmenger) [Unter: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b-i-t-online.de%2Fheft%2F2020-03-rezensionen.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iY3f_zNcvEjeZ6inHVnOK]. In: Open Password Nr. 805 vom 14.08.2020 (H.-C. Hobohm) [Unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzE0MywiOGI3NjZkZmNkZjQ1IiwwLDAsMTMxLDFd].

0.032389745 = product of:
  0.06477949 = sum of:
    0.06477949 = product of:
      0.12955898 = sum of:
        0.12955898 = weight(_text_:m.d in 264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12955898 = score(doc=264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33693048 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.032389745 = product of:
  0.06477949 = sum of:
    0.06477949 = product of:
      0.12955898 = sum of:
        0.12955898 = weight(_text_:m.d in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12955898 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33693048 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While it is easy to identify whether someone has found a piece of information during a search task, it is much harder to measure how much someone has learned during the search process. Searchers who are learning often exhibit exploratory behaviors, and so current research is often focused on improving support for exploratory search. Consequently, we need effective measures of learning to demonstrate better support for exploratory search. Some approaches, such as quizzes, measure recall when learning from a fixed source of information. This research, however, focuses on techniques for measuring open-ended learning, which often involve analyzing handwritten summaries produced by participants after a task. There are two common techniques for analyzing such summaries: (a) counting facts and statements and (b) judging topic coverage. Both of these techniques, however, can be easily confounded by simple variables such as summary length. This article presents a new technique that measures depth of learning within written summaries based on Bloom's taxonomy (B.S. Bloom & M.D. Engelhart, 1956). This technique was generated using grounded theory and is designed to be less susceptible to such confounding variables. Together, these three categories of measure were compared by applying them to a large collection of written summaries produced in a task-based study, and our results provide insights into each of their strengths and weaknesses. Both fact-to-statement ratio and our own measure of depth of learning were effective while being less affected by confounding variables. Recommendations and clear areas of future work are provided to help continued research into supporting sensemaking and learning.

0.029825369 = product of:
  0.059650738 = sum of:
    0.059650738 = product of:
      0.23860295 = sum of:
        0.23860295 = weight(_text_:editors in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23860295 = score(doc=5269,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32495478 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.7342651 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this special issue, the subject of national bibliographies is presented from a user perspective, limited to the role and function of national bibliographies for research. Prior to being guest editors for this special issue, we wrote an article where we examined if the metadata quality of the Swedish National Bibliography could be measured through mapping the level of user awareness regarding the characteristics of the data. We did not hesitate a minute when we were invited to act as guest editors for this special issue of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly.

0.028829848 = product of:
  0.057659697 = sum of:
    0.057659697 = product of:
      0.23063879 = sum of:
        0.23063879 = weight(_text_:3a in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23063879 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41037613 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Faclanthology.org%2FD19-5317.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ZZFyq5wWTtNTvNkrvjlGA.

0.028829848 = product of:
  0.057659697 = sum of:
    0.057659697 = product of:
      0.23063879 = sum of:
        0.23063879 = weight(_text_:3a in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23063879 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41037613 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.univie.ac.at%2Findex.php%2Fvoebm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5332%2F5271%2F&usg=AOvVaw2yQdFGHlmOwVls7ANCpTii.

0.02623271 = product of:
  0.05246542 = sum of:
    0.05246542 = product of:
      0.10493084 = sum of:
        0.10493084 = weight(_text_:22 in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10493084 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16950524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2851, 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=2851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.026091764 = product of:
  0.052183527 = sum of:
    0.052183527 = product of:
      0.20873411 = sum of:
        0.20873411 = weight(_text_:editors in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20873411 = score(doc=1185,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.32495478 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.6423482 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

News portals are a popular destination for web users. News providers are therefore interested in attaining higher visitor rates and promoting greater engagement with their content. One aspect of engagement deals with keeping users on site longer by allowing them to have enhanced click-through experiences. News portals have invested in ways to embed links within news stories but so far these links have been curated by news editors. Given the manual effort involved, the use of such links is limited to a small scale. In this article, we evaluate a system-based approach that detects newsworthy events in a news article and locates other articles related to these events. Our system does not rely on resources like Wikipedia to identify events, and it was designed to be domain independent. A rigorous evaluation, using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, was performed to assess the system-embedded links against the manually-curated ones. Our findings reveal that our system's performance is comparable with that of professional editors, and that users find the automatically generated highlights interesting and the associated articles worthy of reading. Our evaluation also provides quantitative and qualitative insights into the curation of links, from the perspective of users and professional editors.

0.025564602 = product of:
  0.051129203 = sum of:
    0.051129203 = product of:
      0.20451681 = sum of:
        0.20451681 = weight(_text_:editors in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20451681 = score(doc=4361,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32495478 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.6293701 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Flattery citations of editors, potential referees, and so on have been claimed to be a common strategy among academic authors. From a sociology of science perspective as well as from a citation analytical perspective, it is both an interesting claim and a consequential one. The article presents a citation analysis of the editorial board members entering the American Economic Review from 1984 to 2004 using a citation window of 11 years. To test the flattery citation hypothesis further, we have conducted a study applying the difference-in-differences estimator. We analyze the number of times the editors and editorial board members of the American Economic Review were cited in articles published in the journal itself as well as in a pool of documents comprising articles from the Journal of Political Economy and the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The results of the analyses do not support the existence of a flattery citation effect.

0.025564602 = product of:
  0.051129203 = sum of:
    0.051129203 = product of:
      0.20451681 = sum of:
        0.20451681 = weight(_text_:editors in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20451681 = score(doc=996,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32495478 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.6293701 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many dedicated scientists reject the concept of maintaining a "work-life balance." They argue that work is actually a huge part of life. In the mind-set of these scientists, weekdays and weekends are equally appropriate for working on their research. Although we all have encountered such people, we may wonder how widespread this condition is with other scientists in our field. This brief communication probes work-life balance issues among JASIST authors and editors. We collected and examined the publication histories for 1,533 of the 2,402 articles published in JASIST between 2001 and 2012. Although there is no rush to submit, revise, or accept papers, we found that 11% of these events happened during weekends and that this trend has been increasing since 2005. Our findings suggest that working during the weekend may be one of the ways that scientists cope with the highly demanding era of "publish or perish." We hope that our findings will raise an awareness of the steady increases in work among scientists before it affects our work-life balance even more.

0.024102537 = product of:
  0.048205074 = sum of:
    0.048205074 = product of:
      0.1928203 = sum of:
        0.1928203 = weight(_text_:editors in 2944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1928203 = score(doc=2944,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32495478 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048404764 = queryNorm
            0.5933758 = fieldWeight in 2944, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7132807 = idf(docFreq=145, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2944)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This issue of Jlis.it is focused on RDA, Resource Description and Access. In light of increasing international acceptance of this new cataloging content standard, the editors of Jlis.it wish to capture the background of how RDA came to be and the implications of its implementation at this time. This special issue offers a wide overview on the new guidelines from their making to their spreading around the world.