Search (206 results, page 1 of 11)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Zheng, X.; Chen, J.; Yan, E.; Ni, C.: Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications (2023) 0.14 
    0.14318669 = sum of:
  0.032961525 = product of:
    0.1318461 = sum of:
      0.1318461 = weight(_text_:authors in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1318461 = score(doc=886,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.110225156 = sum of:
    0.06531 = weight(_text_:x in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06531 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055251822 = queryNorm
        0.27992693 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
    0.044915155 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044915155 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.055251822 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 886, 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=886)
    Abstract
    Ensuring Wikipedia cites scholarly publications based on quality and relevancy without biases is critical to credible and fair knowledge dissemination. We investigate gender- and country-based biases in Wikipedia citation practices using linked data from the Web of Science and a Wikipedia citation dataset. Using coarsened exact matching, we show that publications by women are cited less by Wikipedia than expected, and publications by women are less likely to be cited than those by men. Scholarly publications by authors affiliated with non-Anglosphere countries are also disadvantaged in getting cited by Wikipedia, compared with those by authors affiliated with Anglosphere countries. The level of gender- or country-based inequalities varies by research field, and the gender-country intersectional bias is prominent in math-intensive STEM fields. To ensure the credibility and equality of knowledge presentation, Wikipedia should consider strategies and guidelines to cite scholarly publications independent of the gender and country of authors.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:53:32
  2. Liu, X.; Chen, X.: Authors' noninstitutional emails and their correlation with retraction (2021) 0.11 
    0.11232245 = sum of:
  0.050747585 = product of:
    0.20299034 = sum of:
      0.20299034 = weight(_text_:authors in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20299034 = score(doc=152,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.80589205 = fieldWeight in 152, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=152)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.061574865 = product of:
    0.12314973 = sum of:
      0.12314973 = weight(_text_:x in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12314973 = score(doc=152,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.5278353 = fieldWeight in 152, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=152)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We collected research articles from Retraction Watch database, Scopus, and a major retraction announcement by Springer, to identify emails used by authors. Authors' emails can be institutional emails and noninstitutional emails. Data suggest that retracted articles are more likely to use noninstitutional emails, but it is difficult to generalize. The study put some focus on authors from China.
  3. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.08 
    0.08205909 = sum of:
  0.05484659 = product of:
    0.21938635 = sum of:
      0.21938635 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21938635 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.46842557 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027212502 = product of:
    0.054425005 = sum of:
      0.054425005 = weight(_text_:x in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054425005 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.
    Type
    x
  4. Zhang, X.; Wang, D.; Tang, Y.; Xiao, Q.: How question type influences knowledge withholding in social Q&A community (2023) 0.06 
    0.055112578 = product of:
  0.110225156 = sum of:
    0.110225156 = sum of:
      0.06531 = weight(_text_:x in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06531 = score(doc=1067,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.27992693 = fieldWeight in 1067, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1067)
      0.044915155 = weight(_text_:22 in 1067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044915155 = score(doc=1067,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1067, 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=1067)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 9.2023 13:51:47
  5. Liu, X.; Bu, Y.; Li, M.; Li, J.: Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration (2024) 0.05 
    0.05168535 = sum of:
  0.019030346 = product of:
    0.07612138 = sum of:
      0.07612138 = weight(_text_:authors in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07612138 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.032655 = product of:
    0.06531 = sum of:
      0.06531 = weight(_text_:x in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06531 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.27992693 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Collaboration across disciplines is a critical form of scientific collaboration to solve complex problems and make innovative contributions. This study focuses on the association between multidisciplinary collaboration measured by coauthorship in publications and the disruption of publications measured by the Disruption (D) index. We used authors' affiliations as a proxy of the disciplines to which they belong and categorized an article into multidisciplinary collaboration or monodisciplinary collaboration. The D index quantifies the extent to which a study disrupts its predecessors. We selected 13 journals that publish articles in six disciplines from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database and then constructed regression models with fixed effects and estimated the relationship between the variables. The findings show that articles with monodisciplinary collaboration are more disruptive than those with multidisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we uncovered the mechanism of how monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration by exploring the references of the sampled publications.
  6. Tian, W.; Cai, R.; Fang, Z.; Geng, Y.; Wang, X.; Hu, Z.: Understanding co-corresponding authorship : a bibliometric analysis and detailed overview (2024) 0.05 
    0.049639978 = sum of:
  0.022427477 = product of:
    0.08970991 = sum of:
      0.08970991 = weight(_text_:authors in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08970991 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027212502 = product of:
    0.054425005 = sum of:
      0.054425005 = weight(_text_:x in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054425005 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship is becoming more and more common. To understand the practice of authorship credit sharing among multiple corresponding authors, we comprehensively analyzed the characteristics of the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorships from the perspectives of countries, disciplines, journals, and articles. This researcher was based on a dataset of nearly 8 million articles indexed in the Web of Science, which provides systematic, cross-disciplinary, and large-scale evidence for understanding the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship for the first time. Our findings reveal that higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship exist in Asian countries, especially in China. From the perspective of disciplines, there is a relatively higher proportion of co-corresponding authorship in the fields of engineering and medicine, while a lower proportion exists in the humanities, social sciences, and computer science fields. From the perspective of journals, high-quality journals usually have higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship. At the level of the article, our findings proved that, compared to articles with a single corresponding author, articles with multiple corresponding authors have a significant citation advantage.
  7. Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023) 0.05 
    0.04937055 = sum of:
  0.026912972 = product of:
    0.10765189 = sum of:
      0.10765189 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10765189 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022457577 = product of:
    0.044915155 = sum of:
      0.044915155 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044915155 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:14
  8. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.05 
    0.048402578 = sum of:
  0.022202069 = product of:
    0.088808276 = sum of:
      0.088808276 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.088808276 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026200507 = product of:
    0.052401014 = sum of:
      0.052401014 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052401014 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.
    Date
    6. 4.2022 19:22:26
  9. Hottenrott, H.; Rose, M.E.; Lawson, C.: ¬The rise of multiple institutional affiliations in academia (2021) 0.05 
    0.046182588 = sum of:
  0.02746794 = product of:
    0.10987176 = sum of:
      0.10987176 = weight(_text_:authors in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10987176 = score(doc=313,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01871465 = product of:
    0.0374293 = sum of:
      0.0374293 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0374293 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 313, 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=313)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study provides the first systematic, international, large-scale evidence on the extent and nature of multiple institutional affiliations on journal publications. Studying more than 15 million authors and 22 million articles from 40 countries we document that: In 2019, almost one in three articles was (co-)authored by authors with multiple affiliations and the share of authors with multiple affiliations increased from around 10% to 16% since 1996. The growth of multiple affiliations is prevalent in all fields and it is stronger in high impact journals. About 60% of multiple affiliations are between institutions from within the academic sector. International co-affiliations, which account for about a quarter of multiple affiliations, most often involve institutions from the United States, China, Germany and the United Kingdom, suggesting a core-periphery network. Network analysis also reveals a number communities of countries that are more likely to share affiliations. We discuss potential causes and show that the timing of the rise in multiple affiliations can be linked to the introduction of more competitive funding structures such as "excellence initiatives" in a number of countries. We discuss implications for science and science policy.
  10. Wu, Z.; Li, R.; Zhou, Z.; Guo, J.; Jiang, J.; Su, X.: ¬A user sensitive subject protection approach for book search service (2020) 0.05 
    0.045927152 = product of:
  0.091854304 = sum of:
    0.091854304 = sum of:
      0.054425005 = weight(_text_:x in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054425005 = score(doc=5617,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 5617, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5617)
      0.0374293 = weight(_text_:22 in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0374293 = score(doc=5617,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5617, 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=5617)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 1.2020 17:22:25
  11. Yang, F.; Zhang, X.: Focal fields in literature on the information divide : the USA, China, UK and India (2020) 0.05 
    0.045927152 = product of:
  0.091854304 = sum of:
    0.091854304 = sum of:
      0.054425005 = weight(_text_:x in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054425005 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.0374293 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0374293 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5835, 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=5835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 2.2020 18:22:13
  12. Guo, T.; Bai, X.; Zhen, S.; Abid, S.; Xia, F.: Lost at starting line : predicting maladaptation of university freshmen based on educational big data (2023) 0.05 
    0.045927152 = product of:
  0.091854304 = sum of:
    0.091854304 = sum of:
      0.054425005 = weight(_text_:x in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054425005 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
      0.0374293 = weight(_text_:22 in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0374293 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1194, 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=1194)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27.12.2022 18:34:22
  13. Rubel, A.; Castro, C.; Pham, A.: Algorithms and autonomy : the ethics of automated decision systems (2021) 0.04 
    0.04307112 = sum of:
  0.01585862 = product of:
    0.06343448 = sum of:
      0.06343448 = weight(_text_:authors in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06343448 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027212502 = product of:
    0.054425005 = sum of:
      0.054425005 = weight(_text_:x in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054425005 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Algorithms influence every facet of modern life: criminal justice, education, housing, entertainment, elections, social media, news feeds, work... the list goes on. Delegating important decisions to machines, however, gives rise to deep moral concerns about responsibility, transparency, freedom, fairness, and democracy. Algorithms and Autonomy connects these concerns to the core human value of autonomy in the contexts of algorithmic teacher evaluation, risk assessment in criminal sentencing, predictive policing, background checks, news feeds, ride-sharing platforms, social media, and election interference. Using these case studies, the authors provide a better understanding of machine fairness and algorithmic transparency. They explain why interventions in algorithmic systems are necessary to ensure that algorithms are not used to control citizens' participation in politics and undercut democracy. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core
    Pages
    x, 205 S
  14. Morrison, H.; Borges, L.; Zhao, X.; Kakou, T.L.; Shanbhoug, A.N.: Change and growth in open access journal publishing and charging trends 2011-2021 (2022) 0.04 
    0.04307112 = sum of:
  0.01585862 = product of:
    0.06343448 = sum of:
      0.06343448 = weight(_text_:authors in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06343448 = score(doc=741,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.027212502 = product of:
    0.054425005 = sum of:
      0.054425005 = weight(_text_:x in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054425005 = score(doc=741,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2333109 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 to 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon and Björk. Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data are drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data. Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC, and pricing trends. Half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation. The university sector may be the most promising approach to economically sustainable no-fee OA journals. Universities publish many OA journals, nearly half of OA articles, tend not to charge APCs and when APCs are charged, the prices are very low on average.
  15. Bullard, J.; Dierking, A.; Grundner, A.: Centring LGBT2QIA+ subjects in knowledge organization systems (2020) 0.04 
    0.041487925 = sum of:
  0.019030346 = product of:
    0.07612138 = sum of:
      0.07612138 = weight(_text_:authors in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07612138 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5996, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5996)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022457577 = product of:
    0.044915155 = sum of:
      0.044915155 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044915155 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5996, 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=5996)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper contains a report of two interdependent knowledge organization (KO) projects for an LGBT2QIA+ library. The authors, in the context of volunteer library work for an independent library, redesigned the classification system and subject cataloguing guidelines to centre LGBT2QIA+ subjects. We discuss the priorities of creating and maintaining knowledge organization systems for a historically marginalized community and address the challenge that queer subjectivity poses to the goals of KO. The classification system features a focus on identity and physically reorganizes the library space in a way that accounts for the multiple and overlapping labels that constitute the currently articulated boundaries of this community. The subject heading system focuses on making visible topics and elements of identity made invisible by universal systems and by the newly implemented classification system. We discuss how this project may inform KO for other marginalized subjects, particularly through process and documentation that prioritizes transparency and the acceptance of an unfinished endpoint for queer KO.
    Date
    6.10.2020 21:22:33
  16. Cooke, N.A.; Kitzie, V.L.: Outsiders-within-Library and Information Science : reprioritizing the marginalized in critical sociocultural work (2021) 0.04 
    0.041487925 = sum of:
  0.019030346 = product of:
    0.07612138 = sum of:
      0.07612138 = weight(_text_:authors in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07612138 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022457577 = product of:
    0.044915155 = sum of:
      0.044915155 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044915155 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 351, 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=351)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    While there are calls for new paradigms within the profession, there are also existing subgenres that fit this bill if they would be fully acknowledged. This essay argues that underrepresented and otherwise marginalized scholars have already produced significant work within social, cultural, and community-oriented paradigms; social justice and advocacy; and, diversity, equity, and inclusion. This work has not been sufficiently valued or promoted. Furthermore, the surrounding structural conditions have resulted in the dismissal, violently reviewed and rejected, and erased work of underrepresented scholars, and the stigmatization and delegitimization of their work. These scholars are "outsiders-within-LIS." By identifying the outsiders-within-LIS through the frame of standpoint theories, the authors are suggesting that a new paradigm does not need to be created; rather, an existing paradigm needs to be recognized and reprioritized. This reprioritized paradigm of critical sociocultural work has and will continue to creatively enrich and expand the field and decolonize LIS curricula.
    Date
    18. 9.2021 13:22:27
  17. Zhang, L.; Lu, W.; Yang, J.: LAGOS-AND : a large gold standard dataset for scholarly author name disambiguation (2023) 0.04 
    0.04114213 = sum of:
  0.022427477 = product of:
    0.08970991 = sum of:
      0.08970991 = weight(_text_:authors in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08970991 = score(doc=883,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01871465 = product of:
    0.0374293 = sum of:
      0.0374293 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0374293 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 883, 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=883)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article, we present a method to automatically build large labeled datasets for the author ambiguity problem in the academic world by leveraging the authoritative academic resources, ORCID and DOI. Using the method, we built LAGOS-AND, two large, gold-standard sub-datasets for author name disambiguation (AND), of which LAGOS-AND-BLOCK is created for clustering-based AND research and LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE is created for classification-based AND research. Our LAGOS-AND datasets are substantially different from the existing ones. The initial versions of the datasets (v1.0, released in February 2021) include 7.5 M citations authored by 798 K unique authors (LAGOS-AND-BLOCK) and close to 1 M instances (LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE). And both datasets show close similarities to the whole Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) across validations of six facets. In building the datasets, we reveal the variation degrees of last names in three literature databases, PubMed, MAG, and Semantic Scholar, by comparing author names hosted to the authors' official last names shown on the ORCID pages. Furthermore, we evaluate several baseline disambiguation methods as well as the MAG's author IDs system on our datasets, and the evaluation helps identify several interesting findings. We hope the datasets and findings will bring new insights for future studies. The code and datasets are publicly available.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:40:36
  18. Belabbes, M.A.; Ruthven, I.; Moshfeghi, Y.; Rasmussen Pennington, D.: Information overload : a concept analysis (2023) 0.04 
    0.04114213 = sum of:
  0.022427477 = product of:
    0.08970991 = sum of:
      0.08970991 = weight(_text_:authors in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08970991 = score(doc=950,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01871465 = product of:
    0.0374293 = sum of:
      0.0374293 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0374293 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.
    Date
    22. 4.2023 19:27:56
  19. Hocker, J.; Schindler, C.; Rittberger, M.: Participatory design for ontologies : a case study of an open science ontology for qualitative coding schemas (2020) 0.04 
    0.03694607 = sum of:
  0.021974351 = product of:
    0.087897405 = sum of:
      0.087897405 = weight(_text_:authors in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.087897405 = score(doc=179,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014971719 = product of:
    0.029943438 = sum of:
      0.029943438 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029943438 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, 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=179)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose The open science movement calls for transparent and retraceable research processes. While infrastructures to support these practices in qualitative research are lacking, the design needs to consider different approaches and workflows. The paper bases on the definition of ontologies as shared conceptualizations of knowledge (Borst, 1999). The authors argue that participatory design is a good way to create these shared conceptualizations by giving domain experts and future users a voice in the design process via interviews, workshops and observations. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a novel approach for creating ontologies in the field of open science using participatory design. As a case study the creation of an ontology for qualitative coding schemas is presented. Coding schemas are an important result of qualitative research, and reuse can yield great potential for open science making qualitative research more transparent, enhance sharing of coding schemas and teaching of qualitative methods. The participatory design process consisted of three parts: a requirement analysis using interviews and an observation, a design phase accompanied by interviews and an evaluation phase based on user tests as well as interviews. Findings The research showed several positive outcomes due to participatory design: higher commitment of users, mutual learning, high quality feedback and better quality of the ontology. However, there are two obstacles in this approach: First, contradictive answers by the interviewees, which needs to be balanced; second, this approach takes more time due to interview planning and analysis. Practical implications The implication of the paper is in the long run to decentralize the design of open science infrastructures and to involve parties affected on several levels. Originality/value In ontology design, several methods exist by using user-centered design or participatory design doing workshops. In this paper, the authors outline the potentials for participatory design using mainly interviews in creating an ontology for open science. The authors focus on close contact to researchers in order to build the ontology upon the expert's knowledge.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  20. Bergman, O.; Israeli, T.; Whittaker, S.: Factors hindering shared files retrieval (2020) 0.03 
    0.034573272 = sum of:
  0.01585862 = product of:
    0.06343448 = sum of:
      0.06343448 = weight(_text_:authors in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06343448 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2518828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5843, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5843)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01871465 = product of:
    0.0374293 = sum of:
      0.0374293 = weight(_text_:22 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0374293 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19348247 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.055251822 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5843, 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=5843)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose Personal information management (PIM) is an activity in which people store information items in order to retrieve them later. The purpose of this paper is to test and quantify the effect of factors related to collection size, file properties and workload on file retrieval success and efficiency. Design/methodology/approach In the study, 289 participants retrieved 1,557 of their shared files in a naturalistic setting. The study used specially developed software designed to collect shared files' names and present them as targets for the retrieval task. The dependent variables were retrieval success, retrieval time and misstep/s. Findings Various factors compromise shared files retrieval including: collection size (large number of files), file properties (multiple versions, size of team sharing the file, time since most recent retrieval and folder depth) and workload (daily e-mails sent and received). The authors discuss theoretical reasons for these negative effects and suggest possible ways to overcome them. Originality/value Retrieval is the main reason people manage personal information. It is essential for retrieval to be successful and efficient, as information cannot be used unless it can be re-accessed. Prior PIM research has assumed that factors related to collection size, file properties and workload affect file retrieval. However, this is the first study to systematically quantify the negative effects of these factors. As each of these factors is expected to be exacerbated in the future, this study is a necessary first step toward addressing these problems.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 172
  • d 32
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 191
  • el 26
  • m 6
  • x 4
  • p 3
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications